Search
Search results
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Dread Nation in Books
Jul 24, 2018
So, as a general rule, I don't read zombie stories. Zombies are the one monster that will almost invariably give me nightmares. This book, however, had such hype built up around it that I decided to bend my rule.
I should not have.
Before I start in on this, let me say it's a good story. It's well-written, the plot is paced nicely, and it's entertaining. All that said, it's quite problematic in many ways. I knew some of this before I read it; there was a Twitter thread about some of the issues, namely that in the Author's Note she describes the Native American boarding schools (where the government forced Native American children to go, and tried to destroy their heritage and culture in the name of "civilizing" them) as "well-meaning." The Twitter thread does an excellent job of dissecting that passage, and it's worth reading.
There's also the incredibly unrealistic scene where Jane gets flogged eleven times, walks back to where she's staying, has a coherent conversation where she lays out a plan she has formed, and then puts a shirt on. That last part especially got me. Like, what? You're going to be in more pain than that! Being flogged barely seems to slow Jane down. She asks for laudanum - for her plan. Not to take for the pain.
I don't know. There's a lot about the book that set my teeth on edge. There's the absurd amount of racism, but the protagonist is a black woman and it's civil war era, so that's to be expected. And it's coming from characters, not from narration. Jane lies. A lot. So it's hard to trust that she's even a reliable narrator.
I guess it's okay. I didn't care for it. I found it really hard to get past the author's "well-meaning" comment about the Native American boarding schools. And the plot of "as soon as they're old enough, black children get sent to combat schools." Especially with what's going on lately with the jailing of migrant children, it feels tone-deaf, ignorant, and genocidal.
One good point was the oh-so-casual mention of bisexuality (a female friend taught her "everything she knows about kissing") but it was only two sentences and never mentioned again. Not nearly enough to make up for the rest of the book.
You can find all my review at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
I should not have.
Before I start in on this, let me say it's a good story. It's well-written, the plot is paced nicely, and it's entertaining. All that said, it's quite problematic in many ways. I knew some of this before I read it; there was a Twitter thread about some of the issues, namely that in the Author's Note she describes the Native American boarding schools (where the government forced Native American children to go, and tried to destroy their heritage and culture in the name of "civilizing" them) as "well-meaning." The Twitter thread does an excellent job of dissecting that passage, and it's worth reading.
There's also the incredibly unrealistic scene where Jane gets flogged eleven times, walks back to where she's staying, has a coherent conversation where she lays out a plan she has formed, and then puts a shirt on. That last part especially got me. Like, what? You're going to be in more pain than that! Being flogged barely seems to slow Jane down. She asks for laudanum - for her plan. Not to take for the pain.
I don't know. There's a lot about the book that set my teeth on edge. There's the absurd amount of racism, but the protagonist is a black woman and it's civil war era, so that's to be expected. And it's coming from characters, not from narration. Jane lies. A lot. So it's hard to trust that she's even a reliable narrator.
I guess it's okay. I didn't care for it. I found it really hard to get past the author's "well-meaning" comment about the Native American boarding schools. And the plot of "as soon as they're old enough, black children get sent to combat schools." Especially with what's going on lately with the jailing of migrant children, it feels tone-deaf, ignorant, and genocidal.
One good point was the oh-so-casual mention of bisexuality (a female friend taught her "everything she knows about kissing") but it was only two sentences and never mentioned again. Not nearly enough to make up for the rest of the book.
You can find all my review at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated The Assassin's Mark in Books
Nov 5, 2018
Firstly I must thank Ebsworth not only for providing a complimentary copy of this book in return for an honest review, but also for having immense patience in waiting for me to provide him with that review. I must also point out how much I have enjoyed reading this book, even if I did struggle to get into the book at first.
There are several aspects which I feel to be major strengths in this book, particularly the characterisation. The assembled cast of characters are all extravagantly wonderful in their own ways, working well together and being entirely believable in the context of the text. In addition, it is worth commenting that they work as well individually as they do collectively, a great testament to Ebsworth's writing style. Jack Telford, as the main character, is a wonderful example of manhood and his cynicism in the tour breathes a breath of fresh air, prompting much thought by the reader on the matters discussed.
A further strength of this book is it's intricate and well developed plot. It is brilliantly put together, with mystery and thought provoking elements all combined with some humour and great history. I can't compliment enough the many well written twists and turns in this novel, whether it's sudden and unexpected deaths or mysterious figures appearing at odd intervals, there's always something that keeps the reader on the edge of their seats and thinking of what could be happening behind closed doors. It's a fantastic read for making you think about what you are reading, however, this is an occasional downside as it makes it a difficult book to read when you only have a few minutes spare.
Perhaps, for me, the best aspect of this book is the detailed research that shines through on every page. It is evident, even to someone with a limited knowledge of the Spanish Civil War, that there is much to learn in this book and that it has been incredibly well researched. Clearly, Ebsworth put much time into his research, and to his credit, as it adds an extra dimension to this story.
Finally, there is little else for me to say other than to recommend this book to all who enjoy history, a good mystery and a strong leading character.
There are several aspects which I feel to be major strengths in this book, particularly the characterisation. The assembled cast of characters are all extravagantly wonderful in their own ways, working well together and being entirely believable in the context of the text. In addition, it is worth commenting that they work as well individually as they do collectively, a great testament to Ebsworth's writing style. Jack Telford, as the main character, is a wonderful example of manhood and his cynicism in the tour breathes a breath of fresh air, prompting much thought by the reader on the matters discussed.
A further strength of this book is it's intricate and well developed plot. It is brilliantly put together, with mystery and thought provoking elements all combined with some humour and great history. I can't compliment enough the many well written twists and turns in this novel, whether it's sudden and unexpected deaths or mysterious figures appearing at odd intervals, there's always something that keeps the reader on the edge of their seats and thinking of what could be happening behind closed doors. It's a fantastic read for making you think about what you are reading, however, this is an occasional downside as it makes it a difficult book to read when you only have a few minutes spare.
Perhaps, for me, the best aspect of this book is the detailed research that shines through on every page. It is evident, even to someone with a limited knowledge of the Spanish Civil War, that there is much to learn in this book and that it has been incredibly well researched. Clearly, Ebsworth put much time into his research, and to his credit, as it adds an extra dimension to this story.
Finally, there is little else for me to say other than to recommend this book to all who enjoy history, a good mystery and a strong leading character.
David McK (3547 KP) rated Lost Stars (Star Wars) in Books
Jan 28, 2019
Earlier this year, I read the first of the 'new' Star Wars books leading up the The Force Awakens, following Disney's abolition of the old Expanded Universe (said book was [a:Chuck Wendig|17152|Chuck Wendig|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1294919586p2/17152.jpg] 's [b:Aftermath|25131600|Aftermath (Star Wars Aftermath, #1)|Chuck Wendig|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1426620007s/25131600.jpg|44828548] ).
While th ebook was all right, it didn't (I felt) live up the 'original' (now no longer canon) continuation of [a:Timothy Zahn|12479|Timothy Zahn|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1215545810p2/12479.jpg]'s 'Heir to the Empire' trilogy, or of some of the books that came after.
I only discovered recently, when I read an article released just before the second of Wendig's Star Wars books, that he is actually a screen-writer rather than a novelist, which goes some way (I felt) towards explaining the choppy structure of the novel.
In the comments on that article, a couple of the contributors had mentioned other 'new' Star Wars books they had read, with most stating this was one of the best, so I decided to give it a go :)
Starting roughly 8 years after 'Revenge of the Sith', this novel follows the exploits of 2 childhood friends (who grow up to be more than friends) from a backwater planet, who end up fighting on different sides of the Galactic Civil War. As such, this takes in all the key events of the original trilogy - The Tantive IV chase, destruction of Alderaan, blowing up of the first Death Star, attack on Hoth, Asteroid chase, Bespin, the space battle above Endor/second Death Star - and goes slightly beyond into explaining why there is a crashed Star Destroyer on the planet Jakku (from the start of The Force Awakens).
Remember in the movies, the lines 'There goes another one / hold your fire' right at the start of the original, with the jettison of an escape pod that holds R2-D2 and C3PO? The character who utters those (NOT either of the two main character here) is given a background, as is that who has 'analysed their attack, and has found a danger'.
Of the two leading-into-The Force Awakens novels I've read so far this year, this is the better
While th ebook was all right, it didn't (I felt) live up the 'original' (now no longer canon) continuation of [a:Timothy Zahn|12479|Timothy Zahn|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1215545810p2/12479.jpg]'s 'Heir to the Empire' trilogy, or of some of the books that came after.
I only discovered recently, when I read an article released just before the second of Wendig's Star Wars books, that he is actually a screen-writer rather than a novelist, which goes some way (I felt) towards explaining the choppy structure of the novel.
In the comments on that article, a couple of the contributors had mentioned other 'new' Star Wars books they had read, with most stating this was one of the best, so I decided to give it a go :)
Starting roughly 8 years after 'Revenge of the Sith', this novel follows the exploits of 2 childhood friends (who grow up to be more than friends) from a backwater planet, who end up fighting on different sides of the Galactic Civil War. As such, this takes in all the key events of the original trilogy - The Tantive IV chase, destruction of Alderaan, blowing up of the first Death Star, attack on Hoth, Asteroid chase, Bespin, the space battle above Endor/second Death Star - and goes slightly beyond into explaining why there is a crashed Star Destroyer on the planet Jakku (from the start of The Force Awakens).
Remember in the movies, the lines 'There goes another one / hold your fire' right at the start of the original, with the jettison of an escape pod that holds R2-D2 and C3PO? The character who utters those (NOT either of the two main character here) is given a background, as is that who has 'analysed their attack, and has found a danger'.
Of the two leading-into-The Force Awakens novels I've read so far this year, this is the better
BE
Buddhist Extremists and Muslim Minorities: Religious Conflict in Contemporary Sri Lanka
Book
2009 brought the end of the protracted civil war in Sri Lanka, and observers hoped to see the...
The Crash of 2016: the Plot to Destroy America--And What We Can Do to Stop it
Book
The United States is more vulnerable today than ever before - including during the Great Depression...
HV
Her Voice Will be on the Side of Right: Gender and Power in Women's Antebellum Antislavery Fiction
Book
Decades before the Civil War, the free American public was gripped by increasingly acrimonious...
Falling Upwards: How We Took to the Air
Book
'Nominally a history of the hot air balloon, 'Falling Upwards' is really a history of hope and...
Smithsonian Magazine
Entertainment and Magazines & Newspapers
App
***TO OUR USERS: Smithsonian magazine’s digital edition is undergoing a change of production...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Another case of threequel-itis
“At least we can agree the third one is always the worst” barks a young Jean Grey in X-Men: Apocalypse. And whilst the film stays well away from the poor efforts of Spider-Man 3 and The Last Stand, there’s more truth to that statement here than director Bryan Singer would want you to believe.
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2018
In a word - fun
By this time, either you are "in" on the Marvel Cinematic Universe or you are "out". If you are "out", there's not a whole lot that I (or any other reviewer) will be able to do to change your mind. Which is too bad, for the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a pretty fun ride. The folks at Marvel "have it down" and I can't remember the last time that I was disappointed by a Marvel movie.
And that goes for the latest installment - ANTMAN AND THE WASP.
Starring Paul Rudd and Evangaline Lilly as the titular characters, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP is the follow-up to 2015's ANT-MAN and (more directly) 2016's CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. It also answers the question as to why these characters were not involved in the other Marvel movie this summer - AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, Part 1.
But, like most of the Marvel films, the plot doesn't really matter, it is the characters and the situations they are put in that matter. And, in the case of this film, the word I would use for both is FUN.
Starting with bickering stars Rudd and Lilly. They do the "frenemies with a no-doubter mutual attraction" thing very well. They play off each other smartly, with Lilly's common sense, physicality and "cut the crap" attitude in vast contrast to Rudd's "man-child". Both are winning presences on the screen, with Rudd's natural charm jumping at you in places where (if it didn't) his character would seem like a jerk.
Joining in the fun is Michael Douglas as, basically, the referee for these two. He looks like he's having fun - despite himself - and really comes into his own with his character. Randall Park does a fun turn as a Federal Agent charged with keeping an eye on Rudd's character and Lawrence Fishburne brings "Morpheus-like" gravitas to his role as a fellow scientist.
But...like in the first Ant-Man film...the characters that steal the film are Michael Pena and his two dim-witted assistants, David Dastmalchian and T.I. When any one of these three (but, especially Pena) are on the screen, the maniacal, fun energy of this film rises dramatically. They had me wishing that they would have their own film to themselves. But..maybe I like them so much because they are being fed to us in very small doses.
Unfortunately, Judy Greer and Bobby Canavale (from the first film) and Walton Goggins (new to this film) don't really have enough to do - and when they are given something to do, it pales in comparison to the others - and to the action.
And what terrific action there is! Filmmaker Peyton Reed (he also Directed Ant Man) does a nice job of keeping the action simple (enough) that you always knew what was going on and playing with size (now they're BIG, now they're SMALL, now they're NORMAL size...) was used wisely to always drive the film - and the action - forward.
As with all Marvel films, this one has a place in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe (a place I won't spoil here), but I was satisfied with how they dealt with this film as a stand alone, "chase" movie, yet still connected to the rest.
A good time was had.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that goes for the latest installment - ANTMAN AND THE WASP.
Starring Paul Rudd and Evangaline Lilly as the titular characters, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP is the follow-up to 2015's ANT-MAN and (more directly) 2016's CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. It also answers the question as to why these characters were not involved in the other Marvel movie this summer - AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, Part 1.
But, like most of the Marvel films, the plot doesn't really matter, it is the characters and the situations they are put in that matter. And, in the case of this film, the word I would use for both is FUN.
Starting with bickering stars Rudd and Lilly. They do the "frenemies with a no-doubter mutual attraction" thing very well. They play off each other smartly, with Lilly's common sense, physicality and "cut the crap" attitude in vast contrast to Rudd's "man-child". Both are winning presences on the screen, with Rudd's natural charm jumping at you in places where (if it didn't) his character would seem like a jerk.
Joining in the fun is Michael Douglas as, basically, the referee for these two. He looks like he's having fun - despite himself - and really comes into his own with his character. Randall Park does a fun turn as a Federal Agent charged with keeping an eye on Rudd's character and Lawrence Fishburne brings "Morpheus-like" gravitas to his role as a fellow scientist.
But...like in the first Ant-Man film...the characters that steal the film are Michael Pena and his two dim-witted assistants, David Dastmalchian and T.I. When any one of these three (but, especially Pena) are on the screen, the maniacal, fun energy of this film rises dramatically. They had me wishing that they would have their own film to themselves. But..maybe I like them so much because they are being fed to us in very small doses.
Unfortunately, Judy Greer and Bobby Canavale (from the first film) and Walton Goggins (new to this film) don't really have enough to do - and when they are given something to do, it pales in comparison to the others - and to the action.
And what terrific action there is! Filmmaker Peyton Reed (he also Directed Ant Man) does a nice job of keeping the action simple (enough) that you always knew what was going on and playing with size (now they're BIG, now they're SMALL, now they're NORMAL size...) was used wisely to always drive the film - and the action - forward.
As with all Marvel films, this one has a place in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe (a place I won't spoil here), but I was satisfied with how they dealt with this film as a stand alone, "chase" movie, yet still connected to the rest.
A good time was had.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)