Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Oct 30, 2017 (Updated Oct 30, 2017)
Amazing visuals (2 more)
Witty dialogue
Surprise appearances
Inconsistent tone (2 more)
Anti climax
Wasted villain
The Worst Avenger's Best Movie
Contains spoilers, click to show
After seeing Thor: Ragnarok, I feel like the filmmakers were so paranoid about not churning out another formulaic, checklist of a Marvel movie that they chucked a whole bunch of disparate ideas into this mixing pot of a film and hoped that some of it would work. To some extent they were right; some of it does work, but some of it really doesn't. The stuff that doesn't work would probably work okay in a separate movie, but here it just provides a lack of cohesion and brings a jolting change of tone to many of the film's scenes.
Let me elaborate on what I mean and there will be spoilers from this point on. This movie should have been at least three different movies:
There should have been a movie about Hela's return to Asgard, showing her recruiting Skurge and raising her army of the dead and showing Thor and Loki being forced to put their differences aside and having to work together to defeat their more powerful, evil sister.
There should have been another movie about Thor ending up on Sakaar and having to battle Hulk and other competitors and eventually starting an uprising against the Grandmaster.
Then there should have been a third movie about Ragnarok and striving to prevent that event from occurring and defeating Surtur.
The plot elements of Ragnarok could have been split into three movies and it would mean that certain characters wouldn't have been wasted and that the big events that take place would have had more weight and gravitas to them, instead of just being brushed off in favour of getting to the next punch-line.
For example, Odin dies in this film and Thor and Loki deal with it and move on in a matter of seconds. There are no emotional repercussions whatsoever. Another example is the Warriors Three appearing in a single scene, having no dialogue and being killed in a matter of seconds of being onscreen. They attempt a character arc with Skurge, but again Karl Urban is onscreen for such a small amount of time that no resolution is felt following his sacrifice at the end of the movie. As soon as Cate Blanchett starts to show some potential as a memorable Marvel villain, the movie cuts away to yet another scene of Hulk and Thor bantering on Sakaar. Idris Elba is wasted too, having barely any dialogue and a very dull subplot. Jeff Goldblum is used purely as a gimmick and again is wasted by not having anywhere near enough screen time. I normally like seeing Tessa Thompson in things, but even she phoned it in here, with her accent taking on multiple different tones and dialects from scene to scene. Then, at the end of the movie, it is like the filmmakers suddenly remembered, 'oh that's right we need to conclude that Ragnarok subplot that we started at the beginning of the movie.' You know the FU***NG TITLE OF THE MOVIE. And so that gets tacked on at the end to sort of bring a conclusion to all of the other multiple subplots and lazily wrap up the movie.
The sheer amount of ideas that they attempted to incorporate here, makes so many elements of the movie's plot feel underdeveloped and although most of these separate parts could have worked if they were split up and fleshed out, here they all just end up falling flat by the end of the movie making the film feel anti-climatic as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, there is also a lot here that works too. I thought the cameos from Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth and Sam Neill was awesome. I liked the Doctor Strange appearance. I like how they had Thor lose his eye and I especially like how they managed to keep that out of all of the trailer and marketing. The trailers did ruin some things though, if we didn't already know that Mjolnir was going to get destroyed through seeing the trailers, it would have had more of an impact and all the talk about the vicious rival that Thor would have to face in the gladiator ring would have been way more effective if we didn't already know that it was going to be the Hulk.
Let's end things on a high note, the visuals were spectacular and this movie is worth going to see in theatres just for this alone. The CGI was incredible and the soundtrack was pretty great too. Overall this is a fun movie, but if like me you have been invested in these characters for the last five years, to see some of them go out with a whimper and some long term story arcs come to a disappointing conclusion, is unsatisfying to say the least.
Let me elaborate on what I mean and there will be spoilers from this point on. This movie should have been at least three different movies:
There should have been a movie about Hela's return to Asgard, showing her recruiting Skurge and raising her army of the dead and showing Thor and Loki being forced to put their differences aside and having to work together to defeat their more powerful, evil sister.
There should have been another movie about Thor ending up on Sakaar and having to battle Hulk and other competitors and eventually starting an uprising against the Grandmaster.
Then there should have been a third movie about Ragnarok and striving to prevent that event from occurring and defeating Surtur.
The plot elements of Ragnarok could have been split into three movies and it would mean that certain characters wouldn't have been wasted and that the big events that take place would have had more weight and gravitas to them, instead of just being brushed off in favour of getting to the next punch-line.
For example, Odin dies in this film and Thor and Loki deal with it and move on in a matter of seconds. There are no emotional repercussions whatsoever. Another example is the Warriors Three appearing in a single scene, having no dialogue and being killed in a matter of seconds of being onscreen. They attempt a character arc with Skurge, but again Karl Urban is onscreen for such a small amount of time that no resolution is felt following his sacrifice at the end of the movie. As soon as Cate Blanchett starts to show some potential as a memorable Marvel villain, the movie cuts away to yet another scene of Hulk and Thor bantering on Sakaar. Idris Elba is wasted too, having barely any dialogue and a very dull subplot. Jeff Goldblum is used purely as a gimmick and again is wasted by not having anywhere near enough screen time. I normally like seeing Tessa Thompson in things, but even she phoned it in here, with her accent taking on multiple different tones and dialects from scene to scene. Then, at the end of the movie, it is like the filmmakers suddenly remembered, 'oh that's right we need to conclude that Ragnarok subplot that we started at the beginning of the movie.' You know the FU***NG TITLE OF THE MOVIE. And so that gets tacked on at the end to sort of bring a conclusion to all of the other multiple subplots and lazily wrap up the movie.
The sheer amount of ideas that they attempted to incorporate here, makes so many elements of the movie's plot feel underdeveloped and although most of these separate parts could have worked if they were split up and fleshed out, here they all just end up falling flat by the end of the movie making the film feel anti-climatic as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, there is also a lot here that works too. I thought the cameos from Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth and Sam Neill was awesome. I liked the Doctor Strange appearance. I like how they had Thor lose his eye and I especially like how they managed to keep that out of all of the trailer and marketing. The trailers did ruin some things though, if we didn't already know that Mjolnir was going to get destroyed through seeing the trailers, it would have had more of an impact and all the talk about the vicious rival that Thor would have to face in the gladiator ring would have been way more effective if we didn't already know that it was going to be the Hulk.
Let's end things on a high note, the visuals were spectacular and this movie is worth going to see in theatres just for this alone. The CGI was incredible and the soundtrack was pretty great too. Overall this is a fun movie, but if like me you have been invested in these characters for the last five years, to see some of them go out with a whimper and some long term story arcs come to a disappointing conclusion, is unsatisfying to say the least.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Tim Burton and the flying elephant
If you had told me 15 years ago that Tim Burton would be directing a live-action adaptation of Disney’s classic, Dumbo I would’ve been overwhelmed with excitement. The director, famed for his unique sense of gothic style and visual flair has directed some of the best films ever made.
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Kyera (8 KP) rated Lord Of Shadows in Books
Jan 31, 2018
Lord of Shadows is the second book in the Dark Artifices trilogy by Cassandra Clare. The book is fantastically written and follows our main characters as they deal with the aftermath of Lady Midnight. Be sure that you read Lady Midnight before delving into this book as there will be many spoilers.
The storylines come together and diverge beautifully in this story, allowing each character to shine. Even though Julian and Emma are the main characters, we get to spend more time with the other Blackthorns, Kit, Cristina, Diana and the others. Each character grows over the course of the novel and we get to know them better. My heart goes out to Dru because although she has her family, she doesn’t have a best friend or someone to truly talk to – like Julian and Emma or Ty and Livvy. She clearly longs for that connection, or to at least be included more by her family and I think many can relate to that.
I loved getting to know Ty and Livvy more because they have such a unique and precious bond. It was also great to see Kit join in with their adventures, even though he is not new to the Shadow World he is new to being a Shadowhunter. They made him feel like part of the family and he understood Ty immediately in a way that most outsiders don’t take the time to. He fits in perfectly with them and I couldn’t wait to see how they would grow as a trio throughout the novel.
Mark has come into his own in this novel – the events he went through in Lady Midnight and with the Wild Hunt changed him, made him less sure of himself. Since he has been back with his family, he is learning to trust again and view himself as a Shadowhunter. He must reconcile his feelings about Kieran with the faerie’s betrayal in Lady Midnight, become more responsible and hopefully take some of the burdens off Julian.
Emma is dealing with the aftermath of discovering who killed her parents and why. As that pursuit has fueled her for the last five years, it’s a strange transition for her. It doesn’t help that her relationship with Julian is as complicated as ever. The two are battling with their emotions and letting it affect them as parabatai. The characters that Cassie has created are so real that you hurt when they hurt and just wish for a happy ending for all of them.
It was fantastic to see the cameos from some of the beloved characters we know from the other Shadowhunter Chronicles series. I personally miss them and always wonder what they’re up to now, how their lives are and what shenanigans they’re embroiled in. Cassie does not disappoint and the cameos were lengthy and detailed enough that I feel satisfied (although of course, I would be happy with several spin-off books chronicling their adventures).
Lord of Shadows takes our heroes outside of Los Angeles, which was brilliant because it allowed Cassie to continue to build and artfully illustrate her world. My favourite new location was Faerie, which we have visited before in the books but was allowed to flourish in this novel. The land was described in greater detail and the Fae themselves were given more depth. Previously, we witnessed interactions between the Seelie Queen and the Nephilim, but now we were able to learn more about the Unseelie.
I didn’t feel that there were any pacing issues in this story – the stories were interwoven with one another masterfully and action was interspersed with storytelling and world building elements. Each action made by the characters purposefully brought us down a road that while we won’t understand fully yet, you can sense the plot points are being introduced and will be fully realized in Queen of Air and Darkness. There are elements that feel like foreshadowing, but we won’t understand them until the series has concluded.
The final chapter was a rollercoaster that brought together several storylines and found all our characters together – but nothing played out as expected. Cassie is skilled at subverting our expectations and yet not leaving us unsatisfied with the conclusion. While I cannot believe some of the things that happened over the course of the novel, I appreciate the beauty of the plot and story, while not feeling like the book left me with a torturous cliffhanger.
I’ve mentioned it before, but Cassie’s books continue to get better and Lord of Shadows was fantastic. I highly recommend reading this book (after Lady Midnight, of course, and perhaps the rest of the Shadowhunter Chronicles as well) because in my humble opinion you will not regret it. I am absolutely in love with the book and utterly destroyed that we have to wait until 2019 to read the conclusion.
The storylines come together and diverge beautifully in this story, allowing each character to shine. Even though Julian and Emma are the main characters, we get to spend more time with the other Blackthorns, Kit, Cristina, Diana and the others. Each character grows over the course of the novel and we get to know them better. My heart goes out to Dru because although she has her family, she doesn’t have a best friend or someone to truly talk to – like Julian and Emma or Ty and Livvy. She clearly longs for that connection, or to at least be included more by her family and I think many can relate to that.
I loved getting to know Ty and Livvy more because they have such a unique and precious bond. It was also great to see Kit join in with their adventures, even though he is not new to the Shadow World he is new to being a Shadowhunter. They made him feel like part of the family and he understood Ty immediately in a way that most outsiders don’t take the time to. He fits in perfectly with them and I couldn’t wait to see how they would grow as a trio throughout the novel.
Mark has come into his own in this novel – the events he went through in Lady Midnight and with the Wild Hunt changed him, made him less sure of himself. Since he has been back with his family, he is learning to trust again and view himself as a Shadowhunter. He must reconcile his feelings about Kieran with the faerie’s betrayal in Lady Midnight, become more responsible and hopefully take some of the burdens off Julian.
Emma is dealing with the aftermath of discovering who killed her parents and why. As that pursuit has fueled her for the last five years, it’s a strange transition for her. It doesn’t help that her relationship with Julian is as complicated as ever. The two are battling with their emotions and letting it affect them as parabatai. The characters that Cassie has created are so real that you hurt when they hurt and just wish for a happy ending for all of them.
It was fantastic to see the cameos from some of the beloved characters we know from the other Shadowhunter Chronicles series. I personally miss them and always wonder what they’re up to now, how their lives are and what shenanigans they’re embroiled in. Cassie does not disappoint and the cameos were lengthy and detailed enough that I feel satisfied (although of course, I would be happy with several spin-off books chronicling their adventures).
Lord of Shadows takes our heroes outside of Los Angeles, which was brilliant because it allowed Cassie to continue to build and artfully illustrate her world. My favourite new location was Faerie, which we have visited before in the books but was allowed to flourish in this novel. The land was described in greater detail and the Fae themselves were given more depth. Previously, we witnessed interactions between the Seelie Queen and the Nephilim, but now we were able to learn more about the Unseelie.
I didn’t feel that there were any pacing issues in this story – the stories were interwoven with one another masterfully and action was interspersed with storytelling and world building elements. Each action made by the characters purposefully brought us down a road that while we won’t understand fully yet, you can sense the plot points are being introduced and will be fully realized in Queen of Air and Darkness. There are elements that feel like foreshadowing, but we won’t understand them until the series has concluded.
The final chapter was a rollercoaster that brought together several storylines and found all our characters together – but nothing played out as expected. Cassie is skilled at subverting our expectations and yet not leaving us unsatisfied with the conclusion. While I cannot believe some of the things that happened over the course of the novel, I appreciate the beauty of the plot and story, while not feeling like the book left me with a torturous cliffhanger.
I’ve mentioned it before, but Cassie’s books continue to get better and Lord of Shadows was fantastic. I highly recommend reading this book (after Lady Midnight, of course, and perhaps the rest of the Shadowhunter Chronicles as well) because in my humble opinion you will not regret it. I am absolutely in love with the book and utterly destroyed that we have to wait until 2019 to read the conclusion.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Doomsday (2008) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
The Reaper Virus has made its way across Great Britain. The uninfected are evacuated while a wall is built in an effort to quarantine the virus and it’s worked up until now. 30 years later, the virus has broken out again. Survivors are discovered on the other side of the wall, which brings hope for a cure. A team of special forces including Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra) are sent to the other side of the wall to try to find this cure. The survivors aren’t like normal people though as they’ve become cannibalistic savages and will kill or eat anyone who stands in their way. Even if a cure is found, it’s unlikely Sinclair and her team will be able to make it back in one piece.
Doomsday is probably not the best movie. It has a 6.0/10 on IMDb based off of 66,848 user ratings and a 51 on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. It’s a jumbled mess of a film, but it’s one where the first time viewing a decade ago triggered some sort of happiness in the cynical brain and barely beating heart attached to the decrepit fingers that type these halfhearted reviews (writing is more important than asthmatic breathing, so just pretend you understood the sarcasm here). There’s still a fondness for Doomsday despite its reputation and a soft spot for Neil Marshall who will hopefully blow us away with his Hellboy film in 2019. So sit back, relax, and enjoy a positive review for what is likely a nonsensical excuse of a film that is fairly enjoyable anyway.
It’s odd that the massive amount of inconsistencies in Dance of the Dead made the film practically unbearable and yet that’s half the charm of Doomsday. Written and directed by Neil Marshall (The Descent, Dog Soldiers), Doomsday is a sci-fi film that has heavy elements of films you likely already love. Judging by the screenshots alone, the film already has a Mad Max and even a Beyond Thunderdome aspect to its post-apocalyptic setting. Doomsday also seems to borrow elements from films such as Aliens, Gladiator, 28 Days Later, and The Warriors.
Sol, played by Craig Conway who was also the main crawler in The Descent, is an extremely violent and hardcore character. Sol is always seething with anger and with that kind of passion and energy he tends to steal nearly every scene he’s in. He pales in comparison to Rhona Mitra’s Sinclair character though. She doesn’t seem to care about anything and always manages to find a way to get out of whatever situation she finds herself in. Back in 2008, Sinclair came off as one of the fiercest and most dominant female on-screen characters that a 24-year-old rookie film critic had ever come across.
Watching the way the savages live and what they do to survive is disgustingly mesmerizing. Malcolm McDowell puts in a convincing performance as Kane. You hear him more than you see him over the course of the film, but his words are felt rather than just heard. Bob Hoskins is rather tame as Sinclair’s boss Bill Nelson. Neil Marhsall had the intention of having Hoskins mimic his bulldog role from The Long Good Friday, but he mostly sits on the sidelines while Sinclair does all of the dirty work.
Doomsday has an impressive amount of gore and the scenes where all hell breaks loose are the most fun. Witnessing the battle sequences, the deaths, and especially the car chase at the end makes Doomsday a worthwhile experience. One could make the argument that Doomsday is a chaotic mess that can’t pick a genre and stick with it for longer than a few minutes at a time, but it’s also difficult to take that to heart when a film is this much fun. It may have an A.D.D. method of filmmaking, but at least you’re never bored and the film manages to hold your interest and entertain you from beginning to end.
Doomsday won’t be for everyone, but it’s a wild, bloody ride at its core and it’s incredibly easy to enjoy the film as a one hour and 45 minute thrill ride in the vein of Mad Max: Fury Road. Horror, science fiction, and action collide along with a massive amalgamation of outbreak, post-apocalyptic, and medieval storylines in the utterly blood-soaked pandemonium known as Neill Marshall’s Doomsday.
Doomsday is currently available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. It’s also currently free on Amazon Prime with Starz and Prime Video Channels. The Multi-Format Blu-ray is $9.81 on Amazon while a two-disc Blu-ray packaged with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s End of Days will set you back $34.98. The DVD is available in brand new condition with free shipping for $6.02 on eBay while a pre-owned Blu-ray is $4.99 with free shipping.
Doomsday is probably not the best movie. It has a 6.0/10 on IMDb based off of 66,848 user ratings and a 51 on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. It’s a jumbled mess of a film, but it’s one where the first time viewing a decade ago triggered some sort of happiness in the cynical brain and barely beating heart attached to the decrepit fingers that type these halfhearted reviews (writing is more important than asthmatic breathing, so just pretend you understood the sarcasm here). There’s still a fondness for Doomsday despite its reputation and a soft spot for Neil Marshall who will hopefully blow us away with his Hellboy film in 2019. So sit back, relax, and enjoy a positive review for what is likely a nonsensical excuse of a film that is fairly enjoyable anyway.
It’s odd that the massive amount of inconsistencies in Dance of the Dead made the film practically unbearable and yet that’s half the charm of Doomsday. Written and directed by Neil Marshall (The Descent, Dog Soldiers), Doomsday is a sci-fi film that has heavy elements of films you likely already love. Judging by the screenshots alone, the film already has a Mad Max and even a Beyond Thunderdome aspect to its post-apocalyptic setting. Doomsday also seems to borrow elements from films such as Aliens, Gladiator, 28 Days Later, and The Warriors.
Sol, played by Craig Conway who was also the main crawler in The Descent, is an extremely violent and hardcore character. Sol is always seething with anger and with that kind of passion and energy he tends to steal nearly every scene he’s in. He pales in comparison to Rhona Mitra’s Sinclair character though. She doesn’t seem to care about anything and always manages to find a way to get out of whatever situation she finds herself in. Back in 2008, Sinclair came off as one of the fiercest and most dominant female on-screen characters that a 24-year-old rookie film critic had ever come across.
Watching the way the savages live and what they do to survive is disgustingly mesmerizing. Malcolm McDowell puts in a convincing performance as Kane. You hear him more than you see him over the course of the film, but his words are felt rather than just heard. Bob Hoskins is rather tame as Sinclair’s boss Bill Nelson. Neil Marhsall had the intention of having Hoskins mimic his bulldog role from The Long Good Friday, but he mostly sits on the sidelines while Sinclair does all of the dirty work.
Doomsday has an impressive amount of gore and the scenes where all hell breaks loose are the most fun. Witnessing the battle sequences, the deaths, and especially the car chase at the end makes Doomsday a worthwhile experience. One could make the argument that Doomsday is a chaotic mess that can’t pick a genre and stick with it for longer than a few minutes at a time, but it’s also difficult to take that to heart when a film is this much fun. It may have an A.D.D. method of filmmaking, but at least you’re never bored and the film manages to hold your interest and entertain you from beginning to end.
Doomsday won’t be for everyone, but it’s a wild, bloody ride at its core and it’s incredibly easy to enjoy the film as a one hour and 45 minute thrill ride in the vein of Mad Max: Fury Road. Horror, science fiction, and action collide along with a massive amalgamation of outbreak, post-apocalyptic, and medieval storylines in the utterly blood-soaked pandemonium known as Neill Marshall’s Doomsday.
Doomsday is currently available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. It’s also currently free on Amazon Prime with Starz and Prime Video Channels. The Multi-Format Blu-ray is $9.81 on Amazon while a two-disc Blu-ray packaged with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s End of Days will set you back $34.98. The DVD is available in brand new condition with free shipping for $6.02 on eBay while a pre-owned Blu-ray is $4.99 with free shipping.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Cartooner: The Fast & Furious Game of Drawing Comics in Tabletop Games
Jul 23, 2019
Ok, I need to admit to you all that I am an artist. I am a musician (as we all at Purple Phoenix Games are). Unfortunately, I am nowhere near what anyone would call a competent visual artist (see play pic below for evidence of that). So when I received Cartooner from Japanime Games (thank you!) I was a bit intimidated. I was never good at Pictionary and I thought I was gonna be doomed whilst playing this. If you are like me, please keep reading because I actually did really well with this one.
A typical game of Cartooner will last four rounds and each round will be the same length – five, six, or seven minutes each. During these rounds players will create comics using increasing numbers of panels each round. So Round 1 will be a 2-panel comic, Round 2 will have 4 panels, Round 3 will have 6 panels, and the final round will contain 8 panels to fill with glorious comic gold. This is the basic game flow. Where the actual “game” part comes in is through the use of the two decks of cards.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
Three “Theme” cards are dealt at the beginning of the game to each player, which describe the player’s obsessions. Players score points at the end of each round for including their Themes in the comic. This may sound somewhat easy, but the game comes with about 28,000 Theme cards and the combinations can be pretty wonky. For example, for my first game I was dealt Fear of Growing Old, Infidelity, and Desire to Be Famous. My 10-year old niece was dealt Aliens, Flowers, and Animals. I mean, come on! AND her dad is an art teacher (who also played with us and totally killed the art). So I thought I was beaten before we even began. The three Theme cards kept everyone pretty busy in Round 1, but it was about to get harder.
Round 2 introduces a new element to the game that refreshes every round: “Trend” cards. Whomever scored lowest in the previous round will draw Trend cards (the number of which is determined by which round you are currently playing) and choose cards to enact for the upcoming round. Trends are basically bonus cards that you can attempt to incorporate into your comic for the round to score fabulous amounts of points. These are optional, of course, but really can boost those scores for the round, so are not to be ignored.
At the end of each round players will present and read their comics to the group to be scored. Points are awarded for including your Themes, completing objectives from the Trend cards, and also for filling in every panel on your page – which I thought would be a breeze, but apparently eight panels is way too hard for me because I neglected to draw something in the final two panels. Tally up your points from all the rounds and determine the greatest comic artist at the table (it was me)!
Components. This game is a large pad of paper, 28,000 cards, and cardboard VP tokens. You must supply your own writing utensil. As you can see below, I like to live on the edge and used ballpoint pen for my artwork. The tokens are fine and the cards are of good quality. What I really want to highlight is the pad of paper that is provided. Every game each player will need four sheets of paper from the pad, one for each round. These pages are wonderfully organized and include the game rules at the bottom of each page to remind you of what will score points. This helps you to prioritize your panels to include the most VP-worthy elements and to (hopefully) tell a good story as well.
All in all this is a frantic comic drawing game that will have you pulling out your hair trying to compose a somewhat cohesive short visual story including elements that may not, and probably WILL not, fit into that narrative. It is relatively quick, as long as the presentations and arbitrations are held in check for time. We do not have many drawing games in our collections, and I am overjoyed that we now have an enjoyable representative of the genre. Purple Phoenix Games eagerly awards this one a 10/12. Go check it out and test your own illustration skills.
A typical game of Cartooner will last four rounds and each round will be the same length – five, six, or seven minutes each. During these rounds players will create comics using increasing numbers of panels each round. So Round 1 will be a 2-panel comic, Round 2 will have 4 panels, Round 3 will have 6 panels, and the final round will contain 8 panels to fill with glorious comic gold. This is the basic game flow. Where the actual “game” part comes in is through the use of the two decks of cards.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
Three “Theme” cards are dealt at the beginning of the game to each player, which describe the player’s obsessions. Players score points at the end of each round for including their Themes in the comic. This may sound somewhat easy, but the game comes with about 28,000 Theme cards and the combinations can be pretty wonky. For example, for my first game I was dealt Fear of Growing Old, Infidelity, and Desire to Be Famous. My 10-year old niece was dealt Aliens, Flowers, and Animals. I mean, come on! AND her dad is an art teacher (who also played with us and totally killed the art). So I thought I was beaten before we even began. The three Theme cards kept everyone pretty busy in Round 1, but it was about to get harder.
Round 2 introduces a new element to the game that refreshes every round: “Trend” cards. Whomever scored lowest in the previous round will draw Trend cards (the number of which is determined by which round you are currently playing) and choose cards to enact for the upcoming round. Trends are basically bonus cards that you can attempt to incorporate into your comic for the round to score fabulous amounts of points. These are optional, of course, but really can boost those scores for the round, so are not to be ignored.
At the end of each round players will present and read their comics to the group to be scored. Points are awarded for including your Themes, completing objectives from the Trend cards, and also for filling in every panel on your page – which I thought would be a breeze, but apparently eight panels is way too hard for me because I neglected to draw something in the final two panels. Tally up your points from all the rounds and determine the greatest comic artist at the table (it was me)!
Components. This game is a large pad of paper, 28,000 cards, and cardboard VP tokens. You must supply your own writing utensil. As you can see below, I like to live on the edge and used ballpoint pen for my artwork. The tokens are fine and the cards are of good quality. What I really want to highlight is the pad of paper that is provided. Every game each player will need four sheets of paper from the pad, one for each round. These pages are wonderfully organized and include the game rules at the bottom of each page to remind you of what will score points. This helps you to prioritize your panels to include the most VP-worthy elements and to (hopefully) tell a good story as well.
All in all this is a frantic comic drawing game that will have you pulling out your hair trying to compose a somewhat cohesive short visual story including elements that may not, and probably WILL not, fit into that narrative. It is relatively quick, as long as the presentations and arbitrations are held in check for time. We do not have many drawing games in our collections, and I am overjoyed that we now have an enjoyable representative of the genre. Purple Phoenix Games eagerly awards this one a 10/12. Go check it out and test your own illustration skills.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Oct 10, 2017
Incredible setting. (2 more)
Groundbreaking for sci-fi movies of the time.
The special effects and visuals still hold up 35 years later.
The Perils & Benefits Of Hindsight
I first watched Blade Runner around fifteen years ago and in my seven year old brain , I put it into the same category as Star Wars. They were both sci-fi movies, both made in a similar era and they both starred Harrison Ford. I think that the first version I saw was the director's cut version. I went back to Blade Runner at the age of 12, when the ultimate cut was released in 2007 and at the time, I felt that the setting and the world were still incredible, but the plot and characters in the movie left a lot to be desired. For the release of the sequel 2049, I decided to go back and re-watch the directors cut a few days before I went to see the new movie.
I totally forgot how slow this film was. The whole thing moves at a snail's pace and half of the runtime is spent looking at Harrison Ford's reaction shots. I had it in my head that the pace of Blade Runner was similar to that of A New Hope, but I was way off. I get it, it's not a sci-fi action flick, it's a hard-boiled, contemplative detective film, but it really was a slog.
I still feel the same way about this movie that I always have, the world and setting is better than the movie itself. There is a reason that so many movies took elements of Blade Runner's amazing setting and used them as inspiration for their own films. To this day the sets and the majority of this 35 year old film's visuals still look great, that is an achievement not to be scoffed at.
I will always appreciate Blade Runner for what it did for sci-fi movies that came after it, but if you saw this film as a kid and are thinking about going back to re-watch it again for the release of the sequel, I would actually recommend against it. This movie was so much better in my head than it was when I actually re-watched it and I somehow like it less now after re-watching it. This shouldn't take away from the importance and influence of this film though and if you consider this a classic, it would be hard to argue with you.
I totally forgot how slow this film was. The whole thing moves at a snail's pace and half of the runtime is spent looking at Harrison Ford's reaction shots. I had it in my head that the pace of Blade Runner was similar to that of A New Hope, but I was way off. I get it, it's not a sci-fi action flick, it's a hard-boiled, contemplative detective film, but it really was a slog.
I still feel the same way about this movie that I always have, the world and setting is better than the movie itself. There is a reason that so many movies took elements of Blade Runner's amazing setting and used them as inspiration for their own films. To this day the sets and the majority of this 35 year old film's visuals still look great, that is an achievement not to be scoffed at.
I will always appreciate Blade Runner for what it did for sci-fi movies that came after it, but if you saw this film as a kid and are thinking about going back to re-watch it again for the release of the sequel, I would actually recommend against it. This movie was so much better in my head than it was when I actually re-watched it and I somehow like it less now after re-watching it. This shouldn't take away from the importance and influence of this film though and if you consider this a classic, it would be hard to argue with you.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Where Are You Hiding, God? in Books
Jul 5, 2017
Cute
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Where Are You Hiding, God? is a children’s picture book by the Austrian illustrator Elisabeth Zartl. Originally published in 2013 under the German title Wo versteckst du dich, lieber Gott? it has been translated into English in order to reach a wider audience. Primarily targeted at children of Christian families, the book attempts to explain the concept of God.
The short story begins with an anonymous little girl searching for God in a manner that resembles a game of Hide and Seek. She looks in her bedroom, the bathroom and the garden before giving up in defeat. As she sits desolately alone, a gust of wind and a falling leaf prompt her to realise that God does not have a corporeal body, but is, in fact, everywhere. Exhilarated by her newfound understanding, she exclaims that God was in all the places she looked and that he is inside her, too. God is everywhere.
Aimed at children ages three and over, Where Are You Hiding, God? explores the confusion a child may have in comprehending the idea of God. For a child, knowing something or someone is there but not being able to see them is a difficult idea to grasp. This book, through the demonstration of someone their own age, helps to explain their questions and uncertainties.
Elizabeth Zartl’s illustrations capture the attention of those reading or looking at the pages. Filling each page with a full-colour palette, the drawings are child-friendly but realistic, making it easy to process, and accurately creates a visual narrative of the written words. The language is also suitable for the intended demographic and, although three-year-olds may not be able to read it themselves, they will certainly understand the story.
From a design point of view, the text and illustrations do not quite match up. The full-page artworks make it difficult to place the short sentences in a way that both elements can work together. This, however, is not the fault of the author/illustrator who would have originally been working with a German text.
Overall, Where Are You Hiding, God? is a sweet, short story that can be read to children or grandchildren over and over again. As well as being a source of entertainment, it introduces them to the beliefs they will encounter during their Christian upbringing and prepares them to develop a greater understanding of God.
Where Are You Hiding, God? is a children’s picture book by the Austrian illustrator Elisabeth Zartl. Originally published in 2013 under the German title Wo versteckst du dich, lieber Gott? it has been translated into English in order to reach a wider audience. Primarily targeted at children of Christian families, the book attempts to explain the concept of God.
The short story begins with an anonymous little girl searching for God in a manner that resembles a game of Hide and Seek. She looks in her bedroom, the bathroom and the garden before giving up in defeat. As she sits desolately alone, a gust of wind and a falling leaf prompt her to realise that God does not have a corporeal body, but is, in fact, everywhere. Exhilarated by her newfound understanding, she exclaims that God was in all the places she looked and that he is inside her, too. God is everywhere.
Aimed at children ages three and over, Where Are You Hiding, God? explores the confusion a child may have in comprehending the idea of God. For a child, knowing something or someone is there but not being able to see them is a difficult idea to grasp. This book, through the demonstration of someone their own age, helps to explain their questions and uncertainties.
Elizabeth Zartl’s illustrations capture the attention of those reading or looking at the pages. Filling each page with a full-colour palette, the drawings are child-friendly but realistic, making it easy to process, and accurately creates a visual narrative of the written words. The language is also suitable for the intended demographic and, although three-year-olds may not be able to read it themselves, they will certainly understand the story.
From a design point of view, the text and illustrations do not quite match up. The full-page artworks make it difficult to place the short sentences in a way that both elements can work together. This, however, is not the fault of the author/illustrator who would have originally been working with a German text.
Overall, Where Are You Hiding, God? is a sweet, short story that can be read to children or grandchildren over and over again. As well as being a source of entertainment, it introduces them to the beliefs they will encounter during their Christian upbringing and prepares them to develop a greater understanding of God.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
My mom took me to see the new It – and it was great. It does have a few changes that are worth noting though – and I’m curious as to how they will play out in the next part. Presently, the film only covers the part that takes place in 1957-1958 (though in the movie, it’s 1988), which leaves things open for another film.
First, I want to say that I have a thing for Bill Skarsgård. I have since I watched Hemlock Grove, where he plays an upir. So finding out that he would be playing Pennywise somehow dispelled my fear of clowns (which actually formed when I was eight and watched the It miniseries – or at least, the first bit of it). Skarsgård performance is spectacular and I have no complaints regarding his acting.
For the most part, It follows a line between the miniseries and the book. When it comes to a tome the size of It, obviously things have need cutting out. To expect more would likely have mean an entire series (not that I’d complain). There are a few things that really bugged me though. First, Richie does not do his voices in It. This is a major character trait that I feel should have been included – especially since he uses his voice imitations in the book to get past Pennywise. To leave out one of Richie’s defining characteristics is disappointing, as I really wanted to see how it would play out.
Second, once again, what Stan sees differs from the book. Those that have read It know that Stan ends up trapped in a standpipe. Here, a corpse comes at him and in order to escape, he recites the names of birds from a book he keeps in his pocket. This causes the door to open and thus Stan Uris lives. His obsession with birds, like Richie’s voice imitations, is another defining characteristic of the boys that is left out.
Because the movie is pressed for time, it’s easier to understand why other elements are left out – such as the real reason behind Eddie Corcoran’s death (which is left simply at “missing” in the film). In fact, several of the disappearance are touched upon just enough to remind viewers how threatening Pennywise is – and that’s perfect for this film.
Overall, I really enjoyed It. I feel that leaving out those two defining characteristics of Richie and Stan was unnecessary. Despite that, It comes in as one of my favorite film so far this year and I might have to bug Mom to get it for me on DVD.
First, I want to say that I have a thing for Bill Skarsgård. I have since I watched Hemlock Grove, where he plays an upir. So finding out that he would be playing Pennywise somehow dispelled my fear of clowns (which actually formed when I was eight and watched the It miniseries – or at least, the first bit of it). Skarsgård performance is spectacular and I have no complaints regarding his acting.
For the most part, It follows a line between the miniseries and the book. When it comes to a tome the size of It, obviously things have need cutting out. To expect more would likely have mean an entire series (not that I’d complain). There are a few things that really bugged me though. First, Richie does not do his voices in It. This is a major character trait that I feel should have been included – especially since he uses his voice imitations in the book to get past Pennywise. To leave out one of Richie’s defining characteristics is disappointing, as I really wanted to see how it would play out.
Second, once again, what Stan sees differs from the book. Those that have read It know that Stan ends up trapped in a standpipe. Here, a corpse comes at him and in order to escape, he recites the names of birds from a book he keeps in his pocket. This causes the door to open and thus Stan Uris lives. His obsession with birds, like Richie’s voice imitations, is another defining characteristic of the boys that is left out.
Because the movie is pressed for time, it’s easier to understand why other elements are left out – such as the real reason behind Eddie Corcoran’s death (which is left simply at “missing” in the film). In fact, several of the disappearance are touched upon just enough to remind viewers how threatening Pennywise is – and that’s perfect for this film.
Overall, I really enjoyed It. I feel that leaving out those two defining characteristics of Richie and Stan was unnecessary. Despite that, It comes in as one of my favorite film so far this year and I might have to bug Mom to get it for me on DVD.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Windmill (The Windmill Massacre) (2016) in Movies
May 12, 2018
I spend a bit too much time on Facebook, of that there’s no doubt. As a result, I tend to pay attention to what movies my friends talk about. One such friend is horror author Edward Lorn, and one such movie that popped up in my feed because of him is The Windmill.
Set in Holland, The Windmill is a fun film that follows the traditional “haunted locale” story. Like most movies of this nature, viewers are presented with an abandoned building (the windmill), an old legend, and a supernatural being. In this case, the windmill is considered a gateway to Hell, courtesy of a miller that, after making a deal with the devil, ground the bones of his victims rather than flour. When a group of individuals embark on a tour of Holland’s windmills, what appears to be an every day, run of the mill (pun totally intended) attraction quickly turns deadly.
The Windmill‘s cast of characters fits several different roles, from the uppity doctor to the vengeful model and even the cliché mad woman with daddy issues. These characters remain true to their personality types and don’t tend to waiver, even as things continue to spin out of control, for which I am thankful – even though it means that they’re downright horrible people. The acting is fairly well done in comparison to a lot of available horror movies, too.
One of the things that did bother me about this movie was an extremely brief lack of continuity. At the point in which the tour bus breaks down in middle of the road, an incident occurs and the bus falls over. That isn’t altogether strange, aside from the fact that it appears to have been knocked over by a bird flying into the window. Whether that was intentional or not, I did find it to be a bit amusing. Since I don’t consider this to be much of a spoiler, I figured I’d simply point it out.
While The Windmill contains several elements of the slasher genre, it appeals more to the psyche via the use of the demonic haunting and vivid hallucinations that reveal the deepest, darkest secrets of its cast. It’s not the best film out there, but it is certainly entertaining in its own right and is undoubtedly worth the watch for a bit of cheesy horror fun. The title, also known as The Windmill Massacre, can be found on Netflix in the United States.
Set in Holland, The Windmill is a fun film that follows the traditional “haunted locale” story. Like most movies of this nature, viewers are presented with an abandoned building (the windmill), an old legend, and a supernatural being. In this case, the windmill is considered a gateway to Hell, courtesy of a miller that, after making a deal with the devil, ground the bones of his victims rather than flour. When a group of individuals embark on a tour of Holland’s windmills, what appears to be an every day, run of the mill (pun totally intended) attraction quickly turns deadly.
The Windmill‘s cast of characters fits several different roles, from the uppity doctor to the vengeful model and even the cliché mad woman with daddy issues. These characters remain true to their personality types and don’t tend to waiver, even as things continue to spin out of control, for which I am thankful – even though it means that they’re downright horrible people. The acting is fairly well done in comparison to a lot of available horror movies, too.
One of the things that did bother me about this movie was an extremely brief lack of continuity. At the point in which the tour bus breaks down in middle of the road, an incident occurs and the bus falls over. That isn’t altogether strange, aside from the fact that it appears to have been knocked over by a bird flying into the window. Whether that was intentional or not, I did find it to be a bit amusing. Since I don’t consider this to be much of a spoiler, I figured I’d simply point it out.
While The Windmill contains several elements of the slasher genre, it appeals more to the psyche via the use of the demonic haunting and vivid hallucinations that reveal the deepest, darkest secrets of its cast. It’s not the best film out there, but it is certainly entertaining in its own right and is undoubtedly worth the watch for a bit of cheesy horror fun. The title, also known as The Windmill Massacre, can be found on Netflix in the United States.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Fever (The Chemical Garden, #2) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I found this book to be much grimmer than the first book, Wither. In this book, Rhine and Gabriel spend most of their time trying to escape and running from or to some place. It was rather tiring at times, and I often wondered while I was reading, Don't they need to eat more? Seriously, they subsist on almost no food until they get to the orphanage, and even then, Rhine still seems to have an anorexic-like view of any and all food. Not very realistic for teenagers, in my view.
Moving on. Rhine's behavior while trapped in the carnival showed me that she can be very scatterbrained and disorganized, without any real planning abilities, even though I saw her as just the opposite in the first book. She seemed to just give in as the power of the drug "angel blood" is forced on her and Gabriel to control them. Her lack of motivation was disappointing, to say the least. The little girl she escapes with proves to be one of the most interesting variables in the whole book.
Further events once they escape seem to just delay the inevitable, but they do help to draw a more detailed picture of the world that Rhine comes from - the desperation and depravity that so much of society has sunk to as the hope of its children continues to inexplicably die. The division between those that want to continue looking for a cure and those that don't is clear, but what is not clear for most of the book is what is killing Rhine, who should still have 3 years of life to go. The horrible Vaughn of Wither is like a haunting presence throughout the book, and he has more secrets than even I can fathom.
The romance between Rhine and Gabriel is stagnated without the threat of discovery by Rhine's abandoned husband. Between escaping capture, living on the run, and futilely hunting down Rhine's brother, it has little chance to grow much at all. In fact, Rhine seemed to have more chemistry with another boy at the orphanage than she can maintain with Gabriel. Plus, Gabriel knows nothing about the world outside the mansion and is flung reeling into this life of survival that he could not have been prepared for - I can't help but feel sorry for him.
The most fascinating scene in the book is hinted at on the cover from the tarot card in Rhine's hand, but unfortunately those elements won't be covered until the final, untitled book in 2013. I look forward to a conclusion that more cleanly wraps up this series.
Moving on. Rhine's behavior while trapped in the carnival showed me that she can be very scatterbrained and disorganized, without any real planning abilities, even though I saw her as just the opposite in the first book. She seemed to just give in as the power of the drug "angel blood" is forced on her and Gabriel to control them. Her lack of motivation was disappointing, to say the least. The little girl she escapes with proves to be one of the most interesting variables in the whole book.
Further events once they escape seem to just delay the inevitable, but they do help to draw a more detailed picture of the world that Rhine comes from - the desperation and depravity that so much of society has sunk to as the hope of its children continues to inexplicably die. The division between those that want to continue looking for a cure and those that don't is clear, but what is not clear for most of the book is what is killing Rhine, who should still have 3 years of life to go. The horrible Vaughn of Wither is like a haunting presence throughout the book, and he has more secrets than even I can fathom.
The romance between Rhine and Gabriel is stagnated without the threat of discovery by Rhine's abandoned husband. Between escaping capture, living on the run, and futilely hunting down Rhine's brother, it has little chance to grow much at all. In fact, Rhine seemed to have more chemistry with another boy at the orphanage than she can maintain with Gabriel. Plus, Gabriel knows nothing about the world outside the mansion and is flung reeling into this life of survival that he could not have been prepared for - I can't help but feel sorry for him.
The most fascinating scene in the book is hinted at on the cover from the tarot card in Rhine's hand, but unfortunately those elements won't be covered until the final, untitled book in 2013. I look forward to a conclusion that more cleanly wraps up this series.