Search
Search results
Nymphomaniac Volume II (2014)
6.3
Rate It
Movie Watch
Joe becomes annoyed with Seligman, accusing him of overlooking the severity of her lost sexuality to...
Hadley (567 KP) rated Hannibal (Hannibal Lecter, #3) in Books
Apr 6, 2019
Written well (1 more)
Interesting characters
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was excited to read this book because Hannibal Lecter is one of my favorite fictional horror characters.
We get to follow Special Agent Clarice Starling through her troubles in the FBI,Hannibal Lecter's life while on the lamb (yes,that was intentional),one Italian detective's need for retribution,and a family's empire thirsty for revenge all inside of Harris' well-written 'Hannibal.'
The transition between this cast of characters is easily done with quick chapters,but Harris never loses a stride,keeping the momentum going from page to page.
The book begins with Special Agent Starling having made her place in the FBI. This soon becomes a controversy after a shootout pushes Starling into the headline spotlight,dubbed as the: Death Angel. Her career begins to fall apart,but not unnoticed by the one and only,Hannibal Lecter.
We meet a new and unforgettable character named Mason Verger. Verger is one of Lecter's earlier victims (pre-Silence of the Lambs),who survived and offers a high reward for the capture of his attacker. Verger is a memorable character --- "Mason Verger,noseless and lipless,with no soft tissue on his face,was all teeth,like a creature of the deep,deep ocean. Inured as we are to masks,the shock in seeing him is delayed. Shock comes with the recognition that this is a human face with a mind behind it. It churns you with its movement,the articulation of the jaw,the turning of the eye to see you. To see your normal face." But finding out the things he had done during his lifetime stays with the reader.
"I'm not ashamed anymore.I'll tell you about anything. It's all okay now. I got a walk on those trumped-up molestation counts if I did five hundred hours of community service,worked at the dog pound and got therapy from Dr. Lecter."
Even I couldn't blame Lecter for what he did to Mason.
"He went over to the mirror I looked at myself in,and kicked the bottom of it and took out a shard. I was flying. He came over and gave me the piece of glass and looked me in the eyes and suggested I might like to peel off my face with it."
Although most would have a revelation after such an attack,Mason continues to be the person he had always been,especially towards the children in his family's 'day care.'
"Do you know what will happen to Kitty Cat? The policemen will take Kitty Cat to the pound and a doctor there will give her a shot. Did you get a shot at day care? Did the nurse give you a shot? With a shiny needle? They'll give Kitty Cat a shot. She'll be so scared when she sees the needle. They'll stick it in and Kitty Cat will hurt and die."
Another interesting character we meet is named Rinaldo Pazzi,an Inspector in Florence,Italy. Pazzi is well known for working high profile cases,including the infamous serial killer,Il Mostro. It is Pazzi who identifies Lecter hiding in Florence. He makes a deal with Verger to help capture him for a nice lump sum,but at the chance of being killed by Lecter.
Eventually,we get a small insight into Lecter's psychological makeup by reliving the death of his sister,Mischa. This memory plays on and off throughout the rest of the book,but it's the only glimpse the reader gets into the dark side of Lecter's mind palace.
Harris beautifully transitioned from 'Silence of the Lambs' to 'Hannibal,' keeping readers on their toes from chapter to chapter. Interesting and dark characters intertwine to bring an end to Hannibal Lecter's series ('Hannibal Rising' is a prequel detailing Lecter's life as a young man).
I wouldn't say that you HAVE to read 'Silence of the Lambs' to understand the book 'Hannibal.' Harris did a great job of reminiscing over events that happened in 'Silence . . ." Yet,having read 'Silence. . .,' I will say you would get a better picture of Hannibal and Starling's view of one another,which would make the ending of 'Hannibal' make more sense to the reader.
Overall,I enjoyed 'Hannibal' more than 'Silence of the Lambs.' I find Starling's maturity in 'Hannibal' refreshing compared to her insecurities in 'Silence. . .' The book is very fluid,but a heavy read - this is not a read-in-a-day kind of book (484 pages). I found myself stopping and allowing what I read to settle in because it just seemed the right thing to do. My only annoyance was that during the entire part two that takes place in Florence,there is a lot of Italian being used without an english translation (I am not fluent,not even a little,so all of those sentences went right over my head). I feel like I may have missed out on some dialogue because of this.
We get to follow Special Agent Clarice Starling through her troubles in the FBI,Hannibal Lecter's life while on the lamb (yes,that was intentional),one Italian detective's need for retribution,and a family's empire thirsty for revenge all inside of Harris' well-written 'Hannibal.'
The transition between this cast of characters is easily done with quick chapters,but Harris never loses a stride,keeping the momentum going from page to page.
The book begins with Special Agent Starling having made her place in the FBI. This soon becomes a controversy after a shootout pushes Starling into the headline spotlight,dubbed as the: Death Angel. Her career begins to fall apart,but not unnoticed by the one and only,Hannibal Lecter.
We meet a new and unforgettable character named Mason Verger. Verger is one of Lecter's earlier victims (pre-Silence of the Lambs),who survived and offers a high reward for the capture of his attacker. Verger is a memorable character --- "Mason Verger,noseless and lipless,with no soft tissue on his face,was all teeth,like a creature of the deep,deep ocean. Inured as we are to masks,the shock in seeing him is delayed. Shock comes with the recognition that this is a human face with a mind behind it. It churns you with its movement,the articulation of the jaw,the turning of the eye to see you. To see your normal face." But finding out the things he had done during his lifetime stays with the reader.
"I'm not ashamed anymore.I'll tell you about anything. It's all okay now. I got a walk on those trumped-up molestation counts if I did five hundred hours of community service,worked at the dog pound and got therapy from Dr. Lecter."
Even I couldn't blame Lecter for what he did to Mason.
"He went over to the mirror I looked at myself in,and kicked the bottom of it and took out a shard. I was flying. He came over and gave me the piece of glass and looked me in the eyes and suggested I might like to peel off my face with it."
Although most would have a revelation after such an attack,Mason continues to be the person he had always been,especially towards the children in his family's 'day care.'
"Do you know what will happen to Kitty Cat? The policemen will take Kitty Cat to the pound and a doctor there will give her a shot. Did you get a shot at day care? Did the nurse give you a shot? With a shiny needle? They'll give Kitty Cat a shot. She'll be so scared when she sees the needle. They'll stick it in and Kitty Cat will hurt and die."
Another interesting character we meet is named Rinaldo Pazzi,an Inspector in Florence,Italy. Pazzi is well known for working high profile cases,including the infamous serial killer,Il Mostro. It is Pazzi who identifies Lecter hiding in Florence. He makes a deal with Verger to help capture him for a nice lump sum,but at the chance of being killed by Lecter.
Eventually,we get a small insight into Lecter's psychological makeup by reliving the death of his sister,Mischa. This memory plays on and off throughout the rest of the book,but it's the only glimpse the reader gets into the dark side of Lecter's mind palace.
Harris beautifully transitioned from 'Silence of the Lambs' to 'Hannibal,' keeping readers on their toes from chapter to chapter. Interesting and dark characters intertwine to bring an end to Hannibal Lecter's series ('Hannibal Rising' is a prequel detailing Lecter's life as a young man).
I wouldn't say that you HAVE to read 'Silence of the Lambs' to understand the book 'Hannibal.' Harris did a great job of reminiscing over events that happened in 'Silence . . ." Yet,having read 'Silence. . .,' I will say you would get a better picture of Hannibal and Starling's view of one another,which would make the ending of 'Hannibal' make more sense to the reader.
Overall,I enjoyed 'Hannibal' more than 'Silence of the Lambs.' I find Starling's maturity in 'Hannibal' refreshing compared to her insecurities in 'Silence. . .' The book is very fluid,but a heavy read - this is not a read-in-a-day kind of book (484 pages). I found myself stopping and allowing what I read to settle in because it just seemed the right thing to do. My only annoyance was that during the entire part two that takes place in Florence,there is a lot of Italian being used without an english translation (I am not fluent,not even a little,so all of those sentences went right over my head). I feel like I may have missed out on some dialogue because of this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A stunning visual triumph.
I was a sufficient nerd to buy a “Back to the Future” T-shirt to celebrate “future day” from “Back to the Future 2” two-years ago, and I will probably be a sufficient nerd to buy a “Blade Runner” T-shirt in two-years time to celebrate the setting-date for the original film. One thing’s for sure… 2049 is never going to be long enough away to see the world of the new Blade Runner movie come to fruition: so I look forward to ironically buying that T-shirt too (assuming I make it to 88!). But I digress.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Big Sick (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Just what the doctor ordered: a charming and thoughtful summer comedy.
Romance and comedy work together beautifully on film: love is innately ridiculous after all! But mix in a dramatic element – particularly a serious medical emergency – to a Rom Com and you walk a dangerous line between on the one hand letting the drama overwhelm the comedy ( “Well! I don’t feel like laughing now!”) and on the other hand diverging into shockingly mawkish finger-down-the-throat sentimentality. Fortunately the new comedy – “The Big Sick” – walks that line to perfection.
Kumail Nanjiani plays (who’d have thought it?) Kumail, a Pakistani-born comic-cum-Uber-driver struggling to get recognised on the Chicago comedy circuit. His performances mix traditional stand-up at a club with a rather po-faced one-man show where he explains at length the culture of Pakistan (Naan-splaining?), including intricate detail on the fielding positions and strategies of cricket. Kumail is heckled during a show by the young and perky Emily (Zoe Kazan, the middle daughter from “It’s Complicated”). Lust blossoms (mental note: stand up comedy seems a fabulous strategy for picking up women) and lust turns to romance as the pair grow closer to each other.
A surging romance. Uber gets love from A to B.
Unfortunately Kumail is aware of something Emily isn’t: his strictly Muslim parents Sharmeen and Azmat (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) believe in arranged marriages to ‘nice Pakistani girls’ and a relationship with – let alone a marriage to – Emily risks disgrace and familial exile. A medical crisis brings Kumail further into dispute, this time with Emily’s parents Beth and Terry (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
Stand-up is, I assert, a very nationalistic thing. It is a medium hugely dependant on context and while I’m sure great British comics like Peter Kay and Eddie Izzard might rate as only a 4 or a 5 out of 10 for most Americans, so most American stand-up comics tend to leave me cold. And perhaps it’s also a movie-thing, that stand-up on the big screen just doesn’t work well? Either way, the initial comedy-club scenes rather left me cold. (And I don’t think most of them were SUPPOSED to be particularly bad – since they seemed to fill the seats each night). As a result I thought this was a “comedy” that wasn’t going to be for me.
Stand up and be counted. Kumail Nanjiani doing the circuit.
But once Nanjiani and Kazan got together the chemistry was immediate and palpable and the duo completely won me round. Kazan in particular is a vibrant and joyous actress who I would love to see a lot more of: this should be a breakout movie for her.
Broader, but none less welcome, comedy is to be found in Kumail’s family home as his mother introduces serial Pakistani girls to the dinner table.
Holly Hunter (“Broadcast News” – one of my favourite films) and Ray Romano are also superb, delivering really thoughtful and nuanced performances that slowly unpeel the stresses inherent in many long-term marriages. The relationship that develops between Kumail and Beth is both poignant and truly touching.
Where the script succeeds is in never quite making the viewer comfortable about where the movie is going and whether the film will end with joy or heartbreak. And you will find no spoilers here!
So is it a comedy classic? Well, no, not quite. What’s a bit disappointing is that for a film as culturally topical as this, the whole question of Islamophobia in Trump’s America is juggled like a hot potato. Aside from one memorable scene in the club, with a redneck heckler, and an excruciating exchange about 9/11 between Kumail and Terry, the subject is completely ignored. This is a shame. The script (by Nanjiani and Emily Gordon) would have benefited enormously from some rather braver “Thick of It” style input from the likes of Armando Iannucci.
I also have to despair at the movie’s marketing executives who came up with this title. FFS! I know “East is East” has already gone, but could you have possibly come up with a less appealing title? I guess the title does serve one useful purpose in flagging up potential upset for those with bad historical experiences of intensive care. (Like “The Descendants” this is what we would term in our family #notaShawFamilyfilm).
Overall though this film, directed by Michael Showalter (no, me neither!) and produced by Judd Apatow (whose name gets the biggest billing), is a fun and engaging movie experience that comes highly recommended. A delightful antidote to the summer blockbuster season. The end titles also bring a delightful surprise (that I’ve seen spoiled since by some reviews) that was moving and brought added depth to the drama that had gone before.
More Hollywood please, more.
Kumail Nanjiani plays (who’d have thought it?) Kumail, a Pakistani-born comic-cum-Uber-driver struggling to get recognised on the Chicago comedy circuit. His performances mix traditional stand-up at a club with a rather po-faced one-man show where he explains at length the culture of Pakistan (Naan-splaining?), including intricate detail on the fielding positions and strategies of cricket. Kumail is heckled during a show by the young and perky Emily (Zoe Kazan, the middle daughter from “It’s Complicated”). Lust blossoms (mental note: stand up comedy seems a fabulous strategy for picking up women) and lust turns to romance as the pair grow closer to each other.
A surging romance. Uber gets love from A to B.
Unfortunately Kumail is aware of something Emily isn’t: his strictly Muslim parents Sharmeen and Azmat (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) believe in arranged marriages to ‘nice Pakistani girls’ and a relationship with – let alone a marriage to – Emily risks disgrace and familial exile. A medical crisis brings Kumail further into dispute, this time with Emily’s parents Beth and Terry (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
Stand-up is, I assert, a very nationalistic thing. It is a medium hugely dependant on context and while I’m sure great British comics like Peter Kay and Eddie Izzard might rate as only a 4 or a 5 out of 10 for most Americans, so most American stand-up comics tend to leave me cold. And perhaps it’s also a movie-thing, that stand-up on the big screen just doesn’t work well? Either way, the initial comedy-club scenes rather left me cold. (And I don’t think most of them were SUPPOSED to be particularly bad – since they seemed to fill the seats each night). As a result I thought this was a “comedy” that wasn’t going to be for me.
Stand up and be counted. Kumail Nanjiani doing the circuit.
But once Nanjiani and Kazan got together the chemistry was immediate and palpable and the duo completely won me round. Kazan in particular is a vibrant and joyous actress who I would love to see a lot more of: this should be a breakout movie for her.
Broader, but none less welcome, comedy is to be found in Kumail’s family home as his mother introduces serial Pakistani girls to the dinner table.
Holly Hunter (“Broadcast News” – one of my favourite films) and Ray Romano are also superb, delivering really thoughtful and nuanced performances that slowly unpeel the stresses inherent in many long-term marriages. The relationship that develops between Kumail and Beth is both poignant and truly touching.
Where the script succeeds is in never quite making the viewer comfortable about where the movie is going and whether the film will end with joy or heartbreak. And you will find no spoilers here!
So is it a comedy classic? Well, no, not quite. What’s a bit disappointing is that for a film as culturally topical as this, the whole question of Islamophobia in Trump’s America is juggled like a hot potato. Aside from one memorable scene in the club, with a redneck heckler, and an excruciating exchange about 9/11 between Kumail and Terry, the subject is completely ignored. This is a shame. The script (by Nanjiani and Emily Gordon) would have benefited enormously from some rather braver “Thick of It” style input from the likes of Armando Iannucci.
I also have to despair at the movie’s marketing executives who came up with this title. FFS! I know “East is East” has already gone, but could you have possibly come up with a less appealing title? I guess the title does serve one useful purpose in flagging up potential upset for those with bad historical experiences of intensive care. (Like “The Descendants” this is what we would term in our family #notaShawFamilyfilm).
Overall though this film, directed by Michael Showalter (no, me neither!) and produced by Judd Apatow (whose name gets the biggest billing), is a fun and engaging movie experience that comes highly recommended. A delightful antidote to the summer blockbuster season. The end titles also bring a delightful surprise (that I’ve seen spoiled since by some reviews) that was moving and brought added depth to the drama that had gone before.
More Hollywood please, more.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Annihilation (2018) in Movies
Feb 24, 2018
Just didn't work for me
I like "Intelligent Science Fiction". You know, like Alex Garland's other Directorial effort 2014's EX MACHINA or Jeff Nichols’ involving 2016 film MIDNIGHT SPECIAL. These are the types of films that uses the backdrop of Science Fiction to delve deeper into character, concepts or ideas, leaving time for the audience to take it all in and to really think about what is being shown on the screen and to wrestle with the concepts brought forth. So, I was really excited when I found out the Garland would be helming a film of the first book in Jeff VanderMeer's SOUTHERN REACH trilogy, ANNIHILATION - a trippy sci-fi book series about an alien presence that starts tearing away at the very fabric of human existence. I was convinced that this marriage of source material and filmmaker would create another cinematic gem.
Boy, was I wrong.
ANNIHILATION fails in all the ways that these types of films could fail. It is self-indulgent, favors style over substance, mood over momentum and has long, long, loooong scenes of dialogue (or non-dialogue) that is supposed to convey a sense of dread and, for me, just made me want to yell at the screen "get on with it!"
ANNIHILATION tells the story of a group of women who comprise the 12th group of explorers entering "the shimmer" - an unknown phenomenon in a remote part of the US that is growing and will soon start engulfing populated areas. None of the other groups have returned (save for 1 soldier). This 12th group, led by the mysterious Dr. Ventres, tries to get at the heart of what the shimmer is and succeed where others failed. Once inside "the shimmer" the group must fight with their own nightmares and what makes them human.
Sounds like a really good premise for an intelligent Sci-Fi film doesn't it? Unfortunately, Director and Writer Garland is more interested in the sights, sounds and moods of "the shimmer" and fails to create any interesting characters - or circumstances - for the audience to follow.
Natalie Portman stars as Lena - a biologist (and former military) who's husband (the great Oscar Isaac) is the lone returning solider (though not all of him, mentally, has returned). The pairing of these two strong, interesting actors should have been enough to propel this film forward, but all they do is stare at each other and "not say" anything. They look at each other like something is wrong, but the never say or do anything. Compounding things is the weird portrayal of the weird Dr. Ventres by Jennifer Jason Leigh - an actress not known from shying away from weird. Her portrayal would have worked, I think, if she had some "normal" folks to play against - or if her character had some sort of climax, but she doesn't, she just sort of peters out. Joining these two are Tessa Thompson (losing the goodwill she earned in THOR:RAGNAROK) as a physicist that "has secrets" and Gina Rodriguez (channelling her inner Michelle Rodriguez) as a gung-ho "kick-ass" paramedic (you can guess how that is going to turn out). Only Tuva Novotny as scientist Cass Sheppard has anything approaching an interesting character, but she is on all too briefly.
Also wasted in this film is Benedict Wong (DOCTOR STRANGE) as the "Basil Exposition" of this film (explaining things to the audience) and David Gyasi (INTERSTELLAR) as a pseudo-love interest for Lena.
Maybe I'm just not "artsy" enough to enjoy this. If you are and you enjoy this, let me know what I missed. As it is, I have an early, leading contender for "Worst Film of 2018".
In the meantime, I'm going to rewatch EX MACHINA or MIDNIGHT SPECIAL, two intelligent Science Fiction films that work.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Boy, was I wrong.
ANNIHILATION fails in all the ways that these types of films could fail. It is self-indulgent, favors style over substance, mood over momentum and has long, long, loooong scenes of dialogue (or non-dialogue) that is supposed to convey a sense of dread and, for me, just made me want to yell at the screen "get on with it!"
ANNIHILATION tells the story of a group of women who comprise the 12th group of explorers entering "the shimmer" - an unknown phenomenon in a remote part of the US that is growing and will soon start engulfing populated areas. None of the other groups have returned (save for 1 soldier). This 12th group, led by the mysterious Dr. Ventres, tries to get at the heart of what the shimmer is and succeed where others failed. Once inside "the shimmer" the group must fight with their own nightmares and what makes them human.
Sounds like a really good premise for an intelligent Sci-Fi film doesn't it? Unfortunately, Director and Writer Garland is more interested in the sights, sounds and moods of "the shimmer" and fails to create any interesting characters - or circumstances - for the audience to follow.
Natalie Portman stars as Lena - a biologist (and former military) who's husband (the great Oscar Isaac) is the lone returning solider (though not all of him, mentally, has returned). The pairing of these two strong, interesting actors should have been enough to propel this film forward, but all they do is stare at each other and "not say" anything. They look at each other like something is wrong, but the never say or do anything. Compounding things is the weird portrayal of the weird Dr. Ventres by Jennifer Jason Leigh - an actress not known from shying away from weird. Her portrayal would have worked, I think, if she had some "normal" folks to play against - or if her character had some sort of climax, but she doesn't, she just sort of peters out. Joining these two are Tessa Thompson (losing the goodwill she earned in THOR:RAGNAROK) as a physicist that "has secrets" and Gina Rodriguez (channelling her inner Michelle Rodriguez) as a gung-ho "kick-ass" paramedic (you can guess how that is going to turn out). Only Tuva Novotny as scientist Cass Sheppard has anything approaching an interesting character, but she is on all too briefly.
Also wasted in this film is Benedict Wong (DOCTOR STRANGE) as the "Basil Exposition" of this film (explaining things to the audience) and David Gyasi (INTERSTELLAR) as a pseudo-love interest for Lena.
Maybe I'm just not "artsy" enough to enjoy this. If you are and you enjoy this, let me know what I missed. As it is, I have an early, leading contender for "Worst Film of 2018".
In the meantime, I'm going to rewatch EX MACHINA or MIDNIGHT SPECIAL, two intelligent Science Fiction films that work.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth Michael Lewis (6 KP) rated Star Trek: Discovery in TV
Feb 26, 2018
Not the Star Trek we've come to know...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I did not have high hopes for this new series. I read every snippet of news about reshoots, cast changes, problems, etc. and I really could not see this new series living up to the ideals of all the Treks gone by. That said, I sat and watched it each week on Netflix and tried, really tried, to keep an open mind.
To begin, this series IS Star Trek. It has the ships. It has the Federation. It has the USS Enterprise (mentioned and seen). So why all the fuss?
Well, firstly, we have the Klingons. They look nothing like their predecessors in any other show. Alright, in The Original Series (TOS) they looked like fake-tanned, mustachioed humans and then they had forehead ridges in The Motion Picture and Next Generation (TNG) and we got over that quickly enough (they even explained why the ridgless Klingons existed in Star Trek Enterprise). Why the hostility towards the new Klingons in STD? Is it because they took an iconic villian and remade them for a more modern audience? Changing the appearance of ships, costumes and make-up along the way? Apparently so. But what series hasn't updated their villains as technology allows them to? Doctor Who's TARDIS has changed appearance more than once as have the Daleks. Didn't Battlestar Galactica face similar issues with the rebooted series? Of course. But we Trekkies can be an unforgiving bunch. Move past the updates to ships, uniforms and even aliens and judge the show on its own merits.
That leads us to the next bit.
Network executives seem to think that a more modern audience needs something edgier to keep them interested. So STD contains bloody violence, torture, f-words, naked Klingon sex (I did not need to see Klingon, armour-plated boobs) and is clearly made for an "adult" audience. My introduction to Star Trek was TNG, and I went back to TOS because I loved it. Then onto DS9 and Voyager. Even Enterprise, which played with established canon like a child in a sandpit, felt like something I'd let my kids watch. STD is like Game of Thrones in space, just with less incest. My kids will not be allowed to see this until they are much, much older.
The show itself is very pretty to look at, acted capably by almost everyone who has screentime and has characters I grew to genuinely like, but the writing was lazy. We were promised a Federation/Klingon war then somehow missed the whole thing by the final episode. The final episode itself seemed like an exercise in "how to end a season quickly and in the least satisfying way possible".
I wanted to give this series a higher score, I really did. I moved it from 7 to 6 and back to 7 again and again until I stuck with 6 because, although it has moments of brilliance, these moments are telegraphed so far in advance of happening you just can't bring yourself to be surprised by any of it. Almost every plot twist is so obvious that the writers seem to be waiting for a pat on the back at how cleverly they revealed the twist to you rather than trying to genuinely amaze you. It had such potential, it really did. The opening credits are beautiful, the music perfect. The ships are great (I play Star Trek Online so updated ships don't faze me that much). The crew are awesome, with dynamics that shift wonderfully and made me want to see more. But... alas.
If you want to watch a Star Trek series that pushes sci-fi, political and societal boundaries then go back and watch TOS, TNG, DS9 or even Voyager. If you want to watch a "Star Trek" series that does all of that for a modern audience... watch The Orville.
To begin, this series IS Star Trek. It has the ships. It has the Federation. It has the USS Enterprise (mentioned and seen). So why all the fuss?
Well, firstly, we have the Klingons. They look nothing like their predecessors in any other show. Alright, in The Original Series (TOS) they looked like fake-tanned, mustachioed humans and then they had forehead ridges in The Motion Picture and Next Generation (TNG) and we got over that quickly enough (they even explained why the ridgless Klingons existed in Star Trek Enterprise). Why the hostility towards the new Klingons in STD? Is it because they took an iconic villian and remade them for a more modern audience? Changing the appearance of ships, costumes and make-up along the way? Apparently so. But what series hasn't updated their villains as technology allows them to? Doctor Who's TARDIS has changed appearance more than once as have the Daleks. Didn't Battlestar Galactica face similar issues with the rebooted series? Of course. But we Trekkies can be an unforgiving bunch. Move past the updates to ships, uniforms and even aliens and judge the show on its own merits.
That leads us to the next bit.
Network executives seem to think that a more modern audience needs something edgier to keep them interested. So STD contains bloody violence, torture, f-words, naked Klingon sex (I did not need to see Klingon, armour-plated boobs) and is clearly made for an "adult" audience. My introduction to Star Trek was TNG, and I went back to TOS because I loved it. Then onto DS9 and Voyager. Even Enterprise, which played with established canon like a child in a sandpit, felt like something I'd let my kids watch. STD is like Game of Thrones in space, just with less incest. My kids will not be allowed to see this until they are much, much older.
The show itself is very pretty to look at, acted capably by almost everyone who has screentime and has characters I grew to genuinely like, but the writing was lazy. We were promised a Federation/Klingon war then somehow missed the whole thing by the final episode. The final episode itself seemed like an exercise in "how to end a season quickly and in the least satisfying way possible".
I wanted to give this series a higher score, I really did. I moved it from 7 to 6 and back to 7 again and again until I stuck with 6 because, although it has moments of brilliance, these moments are telegraphed so far in advance of happening you just can't bring yourself to be surprised by any of it. Almost every plot twist is so obvious that the writers seem to be waiting for a pat on the back at how cleverly they revealed the twist to you rather than trying to genuinely amaze you. It had such potential, it really did. The opening credits are beautiful, the music perfect. The ships are great (I play Star Trek Online so updated ships don't faze me that much). The crew are awesome, with dynamics that shift wonderfully and made me want to see more. But... alas.
If you want to watch a Star Trek series that pushes sci-fi, political and societal boundaries then go back and watch TOS, TNG, DS9 or even Voyager. If you want to watch a "Star Trek" series that does all of that for a modern audience... watch The Orville.
Louise (64 KP) rated Camp Midnight in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I received an advanced readers copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Skye is on her way to her fathers house for the summer, since the seperation of her parents she spends the holidays with him while her doctor mother travels to Rwanda. Skye really hates staying with her father and not because she doesn’t love him, it’s the evil step-mother (Gayle) or in Skye’s terms step-monster! Skye’s father, step -monster and even mother have a suprise in-store, instead of staying with her dad she is to go to Summer Camp! To Skye this is worse than staying with the Step-monster, but to make her father happy she agrees to go. Only when they arrive at the station they are very late and buses are starting to leave, in haste her father sees the bus ‘Camp Midnight’ and informs Skye thats her ride. Upon stepping on the bus Skye soon realises that some of these other kids are not normal and she is clearly on the wrong bus. She befriends Mia and they plan to stick together throughout their time at camp. Camp Midnight is full of witches, werewolves and other monsters of the night, Where the regime is to sleep through the day and wake at midnight. There are all sorts of activities which Skye is set that she is not participating, the group want her to reveal her inner monster but can she?
I enjoyed this book it was an easy quick read and humourous in places even when there were no words the pictures alone were comical (no pun intended) The writing text that was used was sometimes hard to read i.e. Mia looked a lot like Ma because it was so close together. I wasn’t a massive fan of the artwork it had a retro feel to it, the colours were mostly blue, red, orange and green but did complement the story well.
Skye obviously never took her parents separation well and with becoming a teenager, along comes the bitterness and sarcasm which is ineveitable in this stage of life. She is hostile towards her step mother and generally not a nice kid to be around. But true to its form a story like this would’t be worth telling if it didnt have, self discovery, friends, a love interest and also that can people can be different to what they appear to be.
Mia is the timid friend that Skye meets on the bus. Discovering that Mia has been here before and that she has enjoyed it they vow to stick with each other to ride the time out. Mia is very shy, appears to being picked on at the camp for being different and likes to be by herself but will not reveal her true-self to Skye as she believes that she will leave and once again become friendless.
The parents were just vulgar and neglectful, the step-mother was a bitch (sorry had to be said) and the father was easily persuaded by her and backed down and obeyed her demands like a dog…….THIS IS YOUR FRIGGIN KID FOR GOD SAKE!!!. Though I have to say, why is the step mum always evil? I know some great step mums! Annoying trope alert.
This book is not scary whatsoever, yes it has witches, werewolves and other mosters in there but the monster is used as a metaphor for teenagers, with them being confused of who they really are, moodswings etc etc….you get what I am getting at.
I would say this is for middle-grade to teens – it’s not scary but send out an important message.
Overall I rated this 3 stars
Skye is on her way to her fathers house for the summer, since the seperation of her parents she spends the holidays with him while her doctor mother travels to Rwanda. Skye really hates staying with her father and not because she doesn’t love him, it’s the evil step-mother (Gayle) or in Skye’s terms step-monster! Skye’s father, step -monster and even mother have a suprise in-store, instead of staying with her dad she is to go to Summer Camp! To Skye this is worse than staying with the Step-monster, but to make her father happy she agrees to go. Only when they arrive at the station they are very late and buses are starting to leave, in haste her father sees the bus ‘Camp Midnight’ and informs Skye thats her ride. Upon stepping on the bus Skye soon realises that some of these other kids are not normal and she is clearly on the wrong bus. She befriends Mia and they plan to stick together throughout their time at camp. Camp Midnight is full of witches, werewolves and other monsters of the night, Where the regime is to sleep through the day and wake at midnight. There are all sorts of activities which Skye is set that she is not participating, the group want her to reveal her inner monster but can she?
I enjoyed this book it was an easy quick read and humourous in places even when there were no words the pictures alone were comical (no pun intended) The writing text that was used was sometimes hard to read i.e. Mia looked a lot like Ma because it was so close together. I wasn’t a massive fan of the artwork it had a retro feel to it, the colours were mostly blue, red, orange and green but did complement the story well.
Skye obviously never took her parents separation well and with becoming a teenager, along comes the bitterness and sarcasm which is ineveitable in this stage of life. She is hostile towards her step mother and generally not a nice kid to be around. But true to its form a story like this would’t be worth telling if it didnt have, self discovery, friends, a love interest and also that can people can be different to what they appear to be.
Mia is the timid friend that Skye meets on the bus. Discovering that Mia has been here before and that she has enjoyed it they vow to stick with each other to ride the time out. Mia is very shy, appears to being picked on at the camp for being different and likes to be by herself but will not reveal her true-self to Skye as she believes that she will leave and once again become friendless.
The parents were just vulgar and neglectful, the step-mother was a bitch (sorry had to be said) and the father was easily persuaded by her and backed down and obeyed her demands like a dog…….THIS IS YOUR FRIGGIN KID FOR GOD SAKE!!!. Though I have to say, why is the step mum always evil? I know some great step mums! Annoying trope alert.
This book is not scary whatsoever, yes it has witches, werewolves and other mosters in there but the monster is used as a metaphor for teenagers, with them being confused of who they really are, moodswings etc etc….you get what I am getting at.
I would say this is for middle-grade to teens – it’s not scary but send out an important message.
Overall I rated this 3 stars
Alice (12 KP) rated The Temptation of Dragons (Penny White #1) in Books
Jul 3, 2018
<i>Many thanks to the author Chrys Cymri for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review</i>
Original review can be found on my blog Raptureinbooks <a href="http://wp.me/p5y0lX-1Js">here</a href>
I was kindly offered this book by the author in exchange for an honest review and my initial impressions were "yeah this sounds like my kinda thing. Here there be dragons" ya know? Only to get more fully immersed in the book and find that I was a touch disappointed.
<i>The Temptation of Dragons</i> follows Reverend Penny White as she becomes the Vicar General of an alternate world called Lloegyr - please note that there is a heavy Welsh influence in this book coupled with an enormous religious influence - where dragons, unicorns, gryphons and more reside and coexist in relative peace.
The book starts with Penny White coming home slightly intoxicated and thinking she's going mad when she comes across a dying dragon. In true priestly form Penny gets out of her car and performs the last rites of absolution to what turns out to be a real dragon!
From that moment on Penny's life changes in so many ways - dragons exist, unicorns are real, snail sharks get drunk and gryphons are eating her garden birds. Penny is soon tasked to become the Vicar General to the citizens of Lloegyr and that includes all manner of supernatural beasties. Though expected as the main character is a priest, I didn't expect there to be such a heavy religious influence all throughout with literal verses from the Bible quoted on a regular.
Please understand that this is <b>not</b> anything against the book or against the writer and is merely my thoughts on what I considered an overly religious-toned story set in the wrong time period and the wrong world. I honestly found that the hardest part of reading this book but there were parts that I enjoyed for example: Penny White has what amounts to an obsession with sci-fi/fantasy and occult TV and movies, a lot of which were quite obscure for me (not really a TV and movie person *gasp*) I didn't get several of the references - particularly the Doctor Who ones.
Out of all of the characters my favourite had to be Moriarty - shortened to Morey for some reason - a 47-year-old gryphon with no filter. My favourite quote was from Penny about Morey:
<blockquote>"You've sent me a blue tit murdering creationist with sarcasm management issues."
"Correction. Today he's killing a starling."</blockquote>
The sarcasm and humour was rife throughout this book which was brilliant and gave it a nice light undertone to the ultimate seriousness of the book as a whole.
There was one character I didn't like and that was her brother James- I'm not 100% sure why but something about him rubbed me the wrong way. He's a free loading, insensitive toss pot and possibly a pod person.
However, despite my dislike of the heavy religious overtone and of James, I really, really liked <i>how</i> Chrys wrote the dragons and unicorns and all the other supernatural creatures and they had enough of a description without giving away too much important information; but also, on the flip side, there were away lot of unanswered questions such as how <i>exactly</i> does a unicorn use a telephone?
In all, it was a well written book with an interesting concept and some good characters and prose, dialogue was perfectly modern for Penny and a touch Olde World for a lot of the Lloegyr residents.
Original review can be found on my blog Raptureinbooks <a href="http://wp.me/p5y0lX-1Js">here</a href>
I was kindly offered this book by the author in exchange for an honest review and my initial impressions were "yeah this sounds like my kinda thing. Here there be dragons" ya know? Only to get more fully immersed in the book and find that I was a touch disappointed.
<i>The Temptation of Dragons</i> follows Reverend Penny White as she becomes the Vicar General of an alternate world called Lloegyr - please note that there is a heavy Welsh influence in this book coupled with an enormous religious influence - where dragons, unicorns, gryphons and more reside and coexist in relative peace.
The book starts with Penny White coming home slightly intoxicated and thinking she's going mad when she comes across a dying dragon. In true priestly form Penny gets out of her car and performs the last rites of absolution to what turns out to be a real dragon!
From that moment on Penny's life changes in so many ways - dragons exist, unicorns are real, snail sharks get drunk and gryphons are eating her garden birds. Penny is soon tasked to become the Vicar General to the citizens of Lloegyr and that includes all manner of supernatural beasties. Though expected as the main character is a priest, I didn't expect there to be such a heavy religious influence all throughout with literal verses from the Bible quoted on a regular.
Please understand that this is <b>not</b> anything against the book or against the writer and is merely my thoughts on what I considered an overly religious-toned story set in the wrong time period and the wrong world. I honestly found that the hardest part of reading this book but there were parts that I enjoyed for example: Penny White has what amounts to an obsession with sci-fi/fantasy and occult TV and movies, a lot of which were quite obscure for me (not really a TV and movie person *gasp*) I didn't get several of the references - particularly the Doctor Who ones.
Out of all of the characters my favourite had to be Moriarty - shortened to Morey for some reason - a 47-year-old gryphon with no filter. My favourite quote was from Penny about Morey:
<blockquote>"You've sent me a blue tit murdering creationist with sarcasm management issues."
"Correction. Today he's killing a starling."</blockquote>
The sarcasm and humour was rife throughout this book which was brilliant and gave it a nice light undertone to the ultimate seriousness of the book as a whole.
There was one character I didn't like and that was her brother James- I'm not 100% sure why but something about him rubbed me the wrong way. He's a free loading, insensitive toss pot and possibly a pod person.
However, despite my dislike of the heavy religious overtone and of James, I really, really liked <i>how</i> Chrys wrote the dragons and unicorns and all the other supernatural creatures and they had enough of a description without giving away too much important information; but also, on the flip side, there were away lot of unanswered questions such as how <i>exactly</i> does a unicorn use a telephone?
In all, it was a well written book with an interesting concept and some good characters and prose, dialogue was perfectly modern for Penny and a touch Olde World for a lot of the Lloegyr residents.
Medisafe Pill Reminder
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
Never forget to take your meds and pills again with the MUST HAVE pill reminder ranked #1 by...