Search
Search results
Merissa (12889 KP) rated Warrior Hearts Academy: Dragon Rule in Books
May 18, 2025
DRAGON RULE is the third and final book in the Warrior Hearts Academy Dragon trilogy and brings a satisfying conclusion to Bree's story. I say Bree's because she is the one who brings and holds them all together. This MUST be read after the other two books as the story continues on from where it left off.
In other words, Bree is taken by Victor, Riggs is unable to shift, Caliel is still fighting a losing battle against the Ice Drake, and Tez is still someone who leaves a lot to be desired. Does this change?
Erm, yes. Just a little bit! The storyline is amazing and so intricate. I loved watching the pieces fall into place. And seeing Bree become stronger with every passing moment, while still retaining the core essence of who she was, was outstanding. I even warmed up to Tez! Now, how about that?!
If I had one niggle, it would be Nar and the informant. It was never actually confirmed for sure that it was one and the same, so will be playing on my mind.
I really hope this isn't the end of this world. There are open-ended moments that could be followed on (cough, cough, Mykhal) but this one concludes nicely. Now, I want to go back (in their time) and read all of the others from the beginning to get the full experience!
A great read that I thoroughly enjoyed and ABSOLUTELY RECOMMENDED.
** Same worded review will appear elsewhere. **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
May 18, 2025
In other words, Bree is taken by Victor, Riggs is unable to shift, Caliel is still fighting a losing battle against the Ice Drake, and Tez is still someone who leaves a lot to be desired. Does this change?
Erm, yes. Just a little bit! The storyline is amazing and so intricate. I loved watching the pieces fall into place. And seeing Bree become stronger with every passing moment, while still retaining the core essence of who she was, was outstanding. I even warmed up to Tez! Now, how about that?!
If I had one niggle, it would be Nar and the informant. It was never actually confirmed for sure that it was one and the same, so will be playing on my mind.
I really hope this isn't the end of this world. There are open-ended moments that could be followed on (cough, cough, Mykhal) but this one concludes nicely. Now, I want to go back (in their time) and read all of the others from the beginning to get the full experience!
A great read that I thoroughly enjoyed and ABSOLUTELY RECOMMENDED.
** Same worded review will appear elsewhere. **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
May 18, 2025
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
When I heard the news last year that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted yet again, I was like “are you freaking serious”? After the successful Toby Maguire trilogy (though the less said about “Spider-Man 3” the better) and the mildly successful “Amazing Spider-Man” duo with Andrew Garfield only finishing in 2014, did we REALLY need another reboot? More dramatic spider biting? More Uncle Ben spouting then dying? The same old – same old, rewarmed in a pan with a bit of red wine added just to stop it feeling so dry and tasteless.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
Debbiereadsbook (1437 KP) rated Charles (Learning to Love #1) in Books
Jul 28, 2021
deep and complex emotions involved, but I loved it!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarain, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Once upon a time, there was a reader much like yourself. She read for pleasure, but also had fallen down the slippery slope of reading to review, so every book she read needed a review written. Fun, but hard work sometimes, especially when said reader found herself in a book funk of EPIC proportions, and that almost every book she read, was dumped.
Then THIS book landed in her queue to read and review. There had been lots of books dumped this past week, and there weren't many review books in her queue, but this one was asked for ages ago, and so she wanted to read it. So on a quiet evening at work, she jumped in.
And she was pulled back into the small Cornish village that this book is set, the same one that feature in the HIS series, and she was pulled deeper and deeper and she did not stop reading! Well, she did, but only because she was at work! Going home, and she finished this book, staying up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past her bedtime, and she loved it!
She loved Charles. Charles is the third son of an Earl, but he just wants to use his degree to help children who might slip through the net, much like he did. His undiagnosed dyslexia meant he did not get the help he needed as a child, and he doesn't want that for another child. He sees the world differently and wants to help. Applying for the teachers job for a group of 4/5 year olds is his dream job. But the head doesn't think Charles is qualified enough but offers Charles a different sort of job. To bring a smile to his friend's face again.
The reader loved Hugo too. Even though Hugo isn't given a voice, the reader heard him good and well when he speaks. When he touches Charles, when Charles touches him. Hugo was HEARD. Hugo's calling is questioned but his faith is not. He needs to make a decision about fully committing to the church, but he also needs to heal first. Charles helps him to heal, inside and out.
The reader loved that Hugo doesn't hold Charles' history against him. Loved the fact that Hugo almost embraced it. The reader was made to cry. Charles has a deep soul, and he wears his emotions on his face and Hugo sees Charles, really SEES him.
The reader loved that Kier and Mitch, from His Haven. Charles and Kier are best friends. Loved that Kier saw Charles too, just in a different way to Hugo. The reader loved that Charles and his brother George got on soooooooooo much better towards the end of the book than the beginning!
The reader found this a very emotional book. Whether that was because of Charles, or Hugo or them both together, she wasn't quite sure, but she loved that it was. There are deep and complex emotions in this book, and it made the reader slow her reading down, to fully appreciate them.
And the epilogue?? Oh, the reader bawled her heart out at that, she really did!
So, all in all, the reader LOVED this book! The reader wants more of this author!
And the reader lived happily ever after, because lots of this author's books are now settled on her kindle!
The end, with 5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Once upon a time, there was a reader much like yourself. She read for pleasure, but also had fallen down the slippery slope of reading to review, so every book she read needed a review written. Fun, but hard work sometimes, especially when said reader found herself in a book funk of EPIC proportions, and that almost every book she read, was dumped.
Then THIS book landed in her queue to read and review. There had been lots of books dumped this past week, and there weren't many review books in her queue, but this one was asked for ages ago, and so she wanted to read it. So on a quiet evening at work, she jumped in.
And she was pulled back into the small Cornish village that this book is set, the same one that feature in the HIS series, and she was pulled deeper and deeper and she did not stop reading! Well, she did, but only because she was at work! Going home, and she finished this book, staying up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past her bedtime, and she loved it!
She loved Charles. Charles is the third son of an Earl, but he just wants to use his degree to help children who might slip through the net, much like he did. His undiagnosed dyslexia meant he did not get the help he needed as a child, and he doesn't want that for another child. He sees the world differently and wants to help. Applying for the teachers job for a group of 4/5 year olds is his dream job. But the head doesn't think Charles is qualified enough but offers Charles a different sort of job. To bring a smile to his friend's face again.
The reader loved Hugo too. Even though Hugo isn't given a voice, the reader heard him good and well when he speaks. When he touches Charles, when Charles touches him. Hugo was HEARD. Hugo's calling is questioned but his faith is not. He needs to make a decision about fully committing to the church, but he also needs to heal first. Charles helps him to heal, inside and out.
The reader loved that Hugo doesn't hold Charles' history against him. Loved the fact that Hugo almost embraced it. The reader was made to cry. Charles has a deep soul, and he wears his emotions on his face and Hugo sees Charles, really SEES him.
The reader loved that Kier and Mitch, from His Haven. Charles and Kier are best friends. Loved that Kier saw Charles too, just in a different way to Hugo. The reader loved that Charles and his brother George got on soooooooooo much better towards the end of the book than the beginning!
The reader found this a very emotional book. Whether that was because of Charles, or Hugo or them both together, she wasn't quite sure, but she loved that it was. There are deep and complex emotions in this book, and it made the reader slow her reading down, to fully appreciate them.
And the epilogue?? Oh, the reader bawled her heart out at that, she really did!
So, all in all, the reader LOVED this book! The reader wants more of this author!
And the reader lived happily ever after, because lots of this author's books are now settled on her kindle!
The end, with 5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Gaia GPS Classic
Navigation and Travel
App
►► WARNING - DOWNLOAD THE NEW APP INSTEAD Instead of buying this app (Gaia GPS Classic), please...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Natacha (374 KP) rated Red Rising in Books
Jan 23, 2020
More reviews on my blog: https://natachainreviewland.wordpress.com/
Red Rising is another book that I struggle to rate. I did enjoy the book but it didn't blow my mind. I think it's just an "It's not you, it's me" kind of situation. For the best part of the story, I felt like I was reading a retelling of the Hunger Games (and it was a movie I felt it was just ok, haven't read the books) and mixed with The Punisher (guys loses his wife and needs to get his revenge). I had fun but that's all.
Things I liked:
-The writing was very good. Simple, clear, just the right amount of information and exposition to make us understand the world and characters.
-We have a cast of charters with different and distinct personalities and well fleshed out.
-I really enjoyed the fourth part of the book. At this point, I felt like it lost the Hunger Game vibe. We don't have just one person that needs to take down the system but a whole army that marches against corruption.
-Towards the end, we had two nice twists. One of them had been foreshadowed for a while and the second one I personally saw it coming. Although to be honest when you have 20 pages left you can guess that things will go in a different direction what the author is making you believe. Despite that, I really liked those twists.
-I really like Darrow and Mustang dynamic and relationship. I thought it was well done and it felt natural.
-Now that the Huger Game part of the story is done I'm curious to see what Darrow will do outside in the world and how his plan will unfold.
Things I didn't like
I don't have many negatives. There was nothing wrong with the story but I'll try to point some aspect that bothered me.
-As I mention I didn't care about Hunger Game and throughout a large part of the story I couldn't help but thinking of the similarities.
-I'm a little tired of the "They kill my wife and I need to get revenge and keep her dream alive" trope.
-The story is written in first-person POV and present tense and this is really my least favourite way to tell a story.
-I feel like Darrow is a little bit of a Gary Stu. On so many occasion we have Darrow say things like "I'm stronger, I'm taller, I'm faster than he/she, I know better than them" etc. This is why I don't like first-person POV. When it's the author or another person telling us that the main character is stronger or taller or whatever it feels like an observation. When we have the main character telling us about the fact that they are better than everyone else, for me, they become across as obnoxious and annoying. And because of that, I struggle to really connect with Darrow.
-Rape is used a couple of times to move the plot forward. I don't mind when it's used once but when it's used again and again it feels like the author didn't know what else to do to get the plot going.
So here you have it. It wasn't a bad book there was nothing wrong with it and I understand why so many people rave about it. But personally, I couldn't get into the "this is a great book" place. I'm curious about the rest of the series, I don't feel the need to start right away like with other series, but I will get to the second book eventually.
Red Rising is another book that I struggle to rate. I did enjoy the book but it didn't blow my mind. I think it's just an "It's not you, it's me" kind of situation. For the best part of the story, I felt like I was reading a retelling of the Hunger Games (and it was a movie I felt it was just ok, haven't read the books) and mixed with The Punisher (guys loses his wife and needs to get his revenge). I had fun but that's all.
Things I liked:
-The writing was very good. Simple, clear, just the right amount of information and exposition to make us understand the world and characters.
-We have a cast of charters with different and distinct personalities and well fleshed out.
-I really enjoyed the fourth part of the book. At this point, I felt like it lost the Hunger Game vibe. We don't have just one person that needs to take down the system but a whole army that marches against corruption.
-Towards the end, we had two nice twists. One of them had been foreshadowed for a while and the second one I personally saw it coming. Although to be honest when you have 20 pages left you can guess that things will go in a different direction what the author is making you believe. Despite that, I really liked those twists.
-I really like Darrow and Mustang dynamic and relationship. I thought it was well done and it felt natural.
-Now that the Huger Game part of the story is done I'm curious to see what Darrow will do outside in the world and how his plan will unfold.
Things I didn't like
I don't have many negatives. There was nothing wrong with the story but I'll try to point some aspect that bothered me.
-As I mention I didn't care about Hunger Game and throughout a large part of the story I couldn't help but thinking of the similarities.
-I'm a little tired of the "They kill my wife and I need to get revenge and keep her dream alive" trope.
-The story is written in first-person POV and present tense and this is really my least favourite way to tell a story.
-I feel like Darrow is a little bit of a Gary Stu. On so many occasion we have Darrow say things like "I'm stronger, I'm taller, I'm faster than he/she, I know better than them" etc. This is why I don't like first-person POV. When it's the author or another person telling us that the main character is stronger or taller or whatever it feels like an observation. When we have the main character telling us about the fact that they are better than everyone else, for me, they become across as obnoxious and annoying. And because of that, I struggle to really connect with Darrow.
-Rape is used a couple of times to move the plot forward. I don't mind when it's used once but when it's used again and again it feels like the author didn't know what else to do to get the plot going.
So here you have it. It wasn't a bad book there was nothing wrong with it and I understand why so many people rave about it. But personally, I couldn't get into the "this is a great book" place. I'm curious about the rest of the series, I don't feel the need to start right away like with other series, but I will get to the second book eventually.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
I was introduced to Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (the amazing book series written by Alvin Schwartz back in 1981) in my Junior High history class. An odd place for sure to listen to this amazing collection of stories, and yet it displayed how these stories are impactful even if you aren’t reading them around a campfire in the middle of the woods. Schwartz had written two additional sequels to his stories in 1984 and 1991 and the incredibly creepy illustrations (by Stephen Gammell) helped to complete a collection of books that are at home in anyone’s collection both young and old.
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Transporter 3 (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Frank Martin (Jason Statham), the finest driver for hire in the world is back in “Transporter 3”. This time out Frank is forced to deliver a captive girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova), to Odessa from his home in Marseilles .
Frank has been recruited against his will by a scheming individual named Johnson (Robert Knepper), who plans to force the Leader of the Ukrainian government to sign a treaty that will allow for dumping of toxic chemicals.
Johnson has a very vital package from Frank to deliver and thanks to an explosive device attached to Frank and Valentina, he has the reluctant services that make a very in demand individual.
As if matters were not complicated enough for Frank, there is a band of thugs hot on his trail as he and Valentina race through the scenic landscapes of Europe.
Frank is determined to find a way to remove the explosive device attached to his wrist, and Valentina is more resigned to her fate as she sees that no matter what, they are both soon to be dead and should live what little life they have left as best as they can.
Along the way, Frank unleashes some of the signature action sequences of the series which as always include outrageous fight scenes that are as well choreographed as anything Jackie Chan has ever unleashed. Frank is a whirring dervish of action and destruction which bellies his soft spoken man of few words persona.
The film also has plenty of car chases to go with the fight sequences and while they are getting more and more over the top with each new segment of the series, still offer excitement. One such scene involves Frank racing through town on a bike to keep pace with his car after being separated from it. Since Frank or Valentina will go boom should they move beyond a certain distance from the tricked out Audi, you can imagine the extreme steps Frank takes to keep this from happening.
While the action of the film is good, I have to say that it is starting to wear thin after the two previous films. The original “Transporter” was a very fresh film as it blended over the top action and well choreographed fight sequences with a European drama to create a unique hybrid of American and European cinema.
The sequel, “Transporter 2”, relied heavily upon the outrageous stunts and less on plots yet still satisfied thanks to the non-stop action and charisma of Statham.
This time out the dialogue is so stunted and bland that you never see any chemistry between the lead characters develop and it seems a very forced pairing. It was reported that Natalya Rudakova was spotted going to work by Producer Luc Besson who cast her in the film even though she had no acting experience and while she does a good job, they just do not seem to fit with one another in a way that makes the audience care or believe in their situation.
The plot of the film is decent enough for an action film but lacks any real twists or turns which causes the film to unfold with few surprises. While the finale is acceptable, I wanted a better payoff as the series has yet to top the oil fight scene in the first film in my opinion.
In then end the film is a mixed bag that will appeal to fans of the series but even they will have to admit that the tread is starting to wear thin on the tires of this series.
Frank has been recruited against his will by a scheming individual named Johnson (Robert Knepper), who plans to force the Leader of the Ukrainian government to sign a treaty that will allow for dumping of toxic chemicals.
Johnson has a very vital package from Frank to deliver and thanks to an explosive device attached to Frank and Valentina, he has the reluctant services that make a very in demand individual.
As if matters were not complicated enough for Frank, there is a band of thugs hot on his trail as he and Valentina race through the scenic landscapes of Europe.
Frank is determined to find a way to remove the explosive device attached to his wrist, and Valentina is more resigned to her fate as she sees that no matter what, they are both soon to be dead and should live what little life they have left as best as they can.
Along the way, Frank unleashes some of the signature action sequences of the series which as always include outrageous fight scenes that are as well choreographed as anything Jackie Chan has ever unleashed. Frank is a whirring dervish of action and destruction which bellies his soft spoken man of few words persona.
The film also has plenty of car chases to go with the fight sequences and while they are getting more and more over the top with each new segment of the series, still offer excitement. One such scene involves Frank racing through town on a bike to keep pace with his car after being separated from it. Since Frank or Valentina will go boom should they move beyond a certain distance from the tricked out Audi, you can imagine the extreme steps Frank takes to keep this from happening.
While the action of the film is good, I have to say that it is starting to wear thin after the two previous films. The original “Transporter” was a very fresh film as it blended over the top action and well choreographed fight sequences with a European drama to create a unique hybrid of American and European cinema.
The sequel, “Transporter 2”, relied heavily upon the outrageous stunts and less on plots yet still satisfied thanks to the non-stop action and charisma of Statham.
This time out the dialogue is so stunted and bland that you never see any chemistry between the lead characters develop and it seems a very forced pairing. It was reported that Natalya Rudakova was spotted going to work by Producer Luc Besson who cast her in the film even though she had no acting experience and while she does a good job, they just do not seem to fit with one another in a way that makes the audience care or believe in their situation.
The plot of the film is decent enough for an action film but lacks any real twists or turns which causes the film to unfold with few surprises. While the finale is acceptable, I wanted a better payoff as the series has yet to top the oil fight scene in the first film in my opinion.
In then end the film is a mixed bag that will appeal to fans of the series but even they will have to admit that the tread is starting to wear thin on the tires of this series.
Never meet your heroes is the succinct tag line of this Amazon original series, dealing with the notion that all superheroes are morally good… but what if they weren’t…?
Filmed in Canada, and starring New Zealand actors Karl Urban and American Gothic’s Antony Starr, this violent and very adult take on the costumed hero mythology is enough removed from standard American sensibilities to allow it to explore itself boldly and largely uncensored. It is definitely not a show for kids!
From the opening scenes it is evident that The Boys is not afraid to use gallons of blood and gore, nudity and colourful language to emphasise its point of a world corrupt, corporate and cruel, where the falacy of the powerful being there to protect you is shown up as pure money-spinning political and media manipulation.
We follow Jack Quaid’s naive victim Hughie Cambell, as he comes to realise the true nature of the self-centred and entirely flawed “heroes” that make up The Seven – an elite collection of super-powered “freaks”, led by Starr’s superbly vain and ego-maniachal Homelander; yet ultimately controlled by the Vought corporation and its unethical CEO Madelyn Stillwell, played with nervy relish by Elizabeth Shue.
There is Translucent, who can turn his skin invisible, but has to be naked to do so, and uses it largely to lurk in women’s bathrooms… The Deep, who can speak to sea creatures, but manifests a poisonous macho air, driven by massive insecurity… and A-Train, the world’s fastest man, who is a self-serving junkie with big issues.
Into the mix comes, the newest member of The Seven, Erin Moriaty, as Annie January, aka Starlight. Who may or may not have what it takes to join the ranks of well publicised fame, if she can turn a blind eye to the sinister workings of Vought and fit in.
Meanwhile, Hughie, looking for justice and perhaps revenge, meets Will Butcher (Urban), a man with a shady past, a terrible London accent (hilariously brought to attention whenever possible), and a reason to despise and hunt The Seven to extinction. The narrative progresses through this hunt, and the revelation of many secrets, into a cat and mouse game between the powerful “heroes” and the mere mortals determined to stop them.
Arch humour presides; nothing is handled with any sense of realism, favouring spectacle over believability. The tongue is firmly in cheek throughout, and the fun comes from the inventive ways the “Supes” use and misuse their powers, versus the resourcefulness of the essentially powerless methods employed by The Boys to chase them down and bring them to justice.
There are moments when the idea overshadows the actual script, for sure. Other times when the density of characters becomes confusing and unfocused. Without spoilers, it does all go in some very interesting directions, and by the end of episode 8 and the season finale it reaches a point suggesting a tactic many new shows seem to favour. Namely, to leaves things open enough, and on a cliff edge enough, to lead it anywhere it wants to go in a second series.
I have to admit, I wasn’t always comfortable with the tone of it… but, perhaps, that is the point. I did, however, find it very entertaining, fascinatingly post-modern and allegorical. As with many of the “Supes” it could have the ability to fly… but isn’t quite there yet!
Filmed in Canada, and starring New Zealand actors Karl Urban and American Gothic’s Antony Starr, this violent and very adult take on the costumed hero mythology is enough removed from standard American sensibilities to allow it to explore itself boldly and largely uncensored. It is definitely not a show for kids!
From the opening scenes it is evident that The Boys is not afraid to use gallons of blood and gore, nudity and colourful language to emphasise its point of a world corrupt, corporate and cruel, where the falacy of the powerful being there to protect you is shown up as pure money-spinning political and media manipulation.
We follow Jack Quaid’s naive victim Hughie Cambell, as he comes to realise the true nature of the self-centred and entirely flawed “heroes” that make up The Seven – an elite collection of super-powered “freaks”, led by Starr’s superbly vain and ego-maniachal Homelander; yet ultimately controlled by the Vought corporation and its unethical CEO Madelyn Stillwell, played with nervy relish by Elizabeth Shue.
There is Translucent, who can turn his skin invisible, but has to be naked to do so, and uses it largely to lurk in women’s bathrooms… The Deep, who can speak to sea creatures, but manifests a poisonous macho air, driven by massive insecurity… and A-Train, the world’s fastest man, who is a self-serving junkie with big issues.
Into the mix comes, the newest member of The Seven, Erin Moriaty, as Annie January, aka Starlight. Who may or may not have what it takes to join the ranks of well publicised fame, if she can turn a blind eye to the sinister workings of Vought and fit in.
Meanwhile, Hughie, looking for justice and perhaps revenge, meets Will Butcher (Urban), a man with a shady past, a terrible London accent (hilariously brought to attention whenever possible), and a reason to despise and hunt The Seven to extinction. The narrative progresses through this hunt, and the revelation of many secrets, into a cat and mouse game between the powerful “heroes” and the mere mortals determined to stop them.
Arch humour presides; nothing is handled with any sense of realism, favouring spectacle over believability. The tongue is firmly in cheek throughout, and the fun comes from the inventive ways the “Supes” use and misuse their powers, versus the resourcefulness of the essentially powerless methods employed by The Boys to chase them down and bring them to justice.
There are moments when the idea overshadows the actual script, for sure. Other times when the density of characters becomes confusing and unfocused. Without spoilers, it does all go in some very interesting directions, and by the end of episode 8 and the season finale it reaches a point suggesting a tactic many new shows seem to favour. Namely, to leaves things open enough, and on a cliff edge enough, to lead it anywhere it wants to go in a second series.
I have to admit, I wasn’t always comfortable with the tone of it… but, perhaps, that is the point. I did, however, find it very entertaining, fascinatingly post-modern and allegorical. As with many of the “Supes” it could have the ability to fly… but isn’t quite there yet!
Dana (24 KP) rated Shatter Me in Books
Mar 23, 2018
This is my second time reading this book. I have been wanting to do a re-read of this series for a long while, so when I got the audiobooks, I started reading almost immediately. There will most definitely be spoilers for this book and the rest of the series in this review, so if you have not read (or listened to) it, stop reading this review now and come back after. I promise, it is worth it!!
This book is so much more heartbreaking than I originally remembered. Seeing the depths of Juliette's pain whenever she is about to break apart is just so beautifully written. It makes the character sympathetic, but also gives her a hidden amount of strength that she doesn't even see in herself. Being able to look for beauty in the world is something not all people can do, especially people who have been left and hurt so much in their lives as Juliette has been.
Since Juliette has lived only through stories, that is how she knows how to describe the world. It's all so romantic and new to her in every action and experience. I love seeing how she creates relationships and her desperation to find connections. After being alone for so long (long before her stay in the asylum) she latches onto any kind of love she can get.
It is definitely interesting to see the relationships in their baby forms, especially since I know how the series sends. Knowing this, it's really cool to look at the little hints to the characters' true personalities. Hints at Adam's overbearing entitlement he feels over Juliette, Juliette's hidden strength (as I said before), Kenji's awesomeness (just because I freaking love him).
There are also hints about the white bird with the golden crown that are hidden throughout the series and is not what one would think it would be.
I love seeing Warner in these early parts of the story because he is such an arrogant ass. He hasn't shown anyone his humanity, so there is no way for any of the characters (especially Juliette) to know who and what he really is. Ugh. Why couldn't he be the cool version of his self throughout? Oh and when Warner finds out he can touch Juliette, holy hell! When I first read that, my heart was skyrocketing! I was so scared for her and Adam, but also for Warner because what did that mean for him? When he first touches her, he is writhing on the floor, in a moment of pure terror and pain because he cannot have the one thing he wants more than everything. While that's a very entitled thing to think, to want to have another person, it must have been a terrifying moment for the both of them. By the way, I am in no way condoning his actions throughout the series. He did horrible things that cannot be forgiven so easily, but I do find him a fascinating character.
Kenji is still my favorite side character and will always be. He is an idiotic, crass, sarcastic ass hat, but I wouldn't have him any other way.
I love the writing style in this book. I love how it is written like it is Juliette's journal she keeps throughout this book. I am remembering why I loved this series so much when I first read it.
It did move a bit too quickly for me toward the end, but I understand the necessity to do it that way. Because in war, it is fast paced and difficult to drink in the descriptions of the world around you. It's hard to focus on a singular thing, which is how the last section of this book was written. It is just freaking brilliant.
This book is so much more heartbreaking than I originally remembered. Seeing the depths of Juliette's pain whenever she is about to break apart is just so beautifully written. It makes the character sympathetic, but also gives her a hidden amount of strength that she doesn't even see in herself. Being able to look for beauty in the world is something not all people can do, especially people who have been left and hurt so much in their lives as Juliette has been.
Since Juliette has lived only through stories, that is how she knows how to describe the world. It's all so romantic and new to her in every action and experience. I love seeing how she creates relationships and her desperation to find connections. After being alone for so long (long before her stay in the asylum) she latches onto any kind of love she can get.
It is definitely interesting to see the relationships in their baby forms, especially since I know how the series sends. Knowing this, it's really cool to look at the little hints to the characters' true personalities. Hints at Adam's overbearing entitlement he feels over Juliette, Juliette's hidden strength (as I said before), Kenji's awesomeness (just because I freaking love him).
There are also hints about the white bird with the golden crown that are hidden throughout the series and is not what one would think it would be.
I love seeing Warner in these early parts of the story because he is such an arrogant ass. He hasn't shown anyone his humanity, so there is no way for any of the characters (especially Juliette) to know who and what he really is. Ugh. Why couldn't he be the cool version of his self throughout? Oh and when Warner finds out he can touch Juliette, holy hell! When I first read that, my heart was skyrocketing! I was so scared for her and Adam, but also for Warner because what did that mean for him? When he first touches her, he is writhing on the floor, in a moment of pure terror and pain because he cannot have the one thing he wants more than everything. While that's a very entitled thing to think, to want to have another person, it must have been a terrifying moment for the both of them. By the way, I am in no way condoning his actions throughout the series. He did horrible things that cannot be forgiven so easily, but I do find him a fascinating character.
Kenji is still my favorite side character and will always be. He is an idiotic, crass, sarcastic ass hat, but I wouldn't have him any other way.
I love the writing style in this book. I love how it is written like it is Juliette's journal she keeps throughout this book. I am remembering why I loved this series so much when I first read it.
It did move a bit too quickly for me toward the end, but I understand the necessity to do it that way. Because in war, it is fast paced and difficult to drink in the descriptions of the world around you. It's hard to focus on a singular thing, which is how the last section of this book was written. It is just freaking brilliant.