Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Haunting In Cawdor (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Haunting in Cawdor starts as Vivian Miller (Young) who has been serving out her jail sentence where she ends up getting sent to help at the Cawdor Barn Theatre after a string of good behaviour. The plan along with other criminals is to help restore and put on a show for eccentric failed actor Lawrence O’Neill (Elwes). He wants to put on a show of Macbeth with all of the cast getting different roles each night. Vivian starts hearing strange goings on around the camp but it isn’t long before Lawrence learns that she has had a very twisted past and could be dangerous. As the play continues to be prepared the secrets keep coming out and so does the ghosts haunting the theatre, can they be laid to rest?
A Haunting in Cawdor gives us a horror thriller that shows us having to follow the traditional ghost haunting to try and help uncover what really happened to them. We get to put this situation with young offenders just about to be released where out lead has her own problems. While everything is built up nicely even if slightly slow we get to see what really happened before learning the complete truth. For me there isn’t enough focus on the tragic story and we are left with a good ending even if it just sort of happens.
Actor Review
Cary Elwes: Lawrence O’Neill is the theatre director who is giving these young offenders a chance to give back for their crimes. He is putting together a new performance of Macbeth only he has a past with the play that puts everyone at risk. Cary is good in this role but you would expect that from him.lary
Shelby Young: Vivian Miller is one of the offenders who is given a chance in this theatre production and clean-up work. She starts to become paranoid which is a side effect she has been having for years leading us to wonder just what is real. She gets the lead in the play making her the victim of the ghost haunting the play. Shelby is good in this leading horror role.vivian
Michael Welch: Roddy is a young man that keeps turning up in Vivian’s life, he tries to make her more relaxed about where she finds herself having claimed to have spent time there too. Michael is menacing but we never see enough of him.roddy
Alexandria DeBerry: Jeanette is the former member of the theatre who appeared in one of the recording that Vivian watched but she is also haunting the new residents of the theatre. Alexandria much like Michal just isn’t involved as much as we would like.
Support Cast: A Haunting in Cawdor has a supporting cast that all are part of the camp, we have the typical characters you would expect to see there without any really standing out.
Director Review: Phil Wurtzel – Phil gives us a nice horror that slow builds to an ending we kind of see coming.
Horror: A Haunting in Cawdor has a couple of good if not easy jump scares.
Thriller: A Haunting in Cawdor does keep us wondering to where it will end up going.
Settings: A Haunting in Cawdor uses the setting well putting our characters in an isolated location with a past tragic event.
Special Effects: A Haunting in Cawdor has good effects when needed without using them too much.
Suggestion: A Haunting in Cawdor is one for the horror fans to try. (Horror Fans Try)
Best Part: Hauntings all come off nicely.
Worst Part: Too much on the camp atmosphere.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: The Gallows
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $1.2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: Recent parolee tortured by the curse of Macbeth
Overall: Tidy horror that has good scares around the rehabilitation idea behind the film.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/02/15/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-a-haunting-in-cawbor-2015/
A Haunting in Cawdor gives us a horror thriller that shows us having to follow the traditional ghost haunting to try and help uncover what really happened to them. We get to put this situation with young offenders just about to be released where out lead has her own problems. While everything is built up nicely even if slightly slow we get to see what really happened before learning the complete truth. For me there isn’t enough focus on the tragic story and we are left with a good ending even if it just sort of happens.
Actor Review
Cary Elwes: Lawrence O’Neill is the theatre director who is giving these young offenders a chance to give back for their crimes. He is putting together a new performance of Macbeth only he has a past with the play that puts everyone at risk. Cary is good in this role but you would expect that from him.lary
Shelby Young: Vivian Miller is one of the offenders who is given a chance in this theatre production and clean-up work. She starts to become paranoid which is a side effect she has been having for years leading us to wonder just what is real. She gets the lead in the play making her the victim of the ghost haunting the play. Shelby is good in this leading horror role.vivian
Michael Welch: Roddy is a young man that keeps turning up in Vivian’s life, he tries to make her more relaxed about where she finds herself having claimed to have spent time there too. Michael is menacing but we never see enough of him.roddy
Alexandria DeBerry: Jeanette is the former member of the theatre who appeared in one of the recording that Vivian watched but she is also haunting the new residents of the theatre. Alexandria much like Michal just isn’t involved as much as we would like.
Support Cast: A Haunting in Cawdor has a supporting cast that all are part of the camp, we have the typical characters you would expect to see there without any really standing out.
Director Review: Phil Wurtzel – Phil gives us a nice horror that slow builds to an ending we kind of see coming.
Horror: A Haunting in Cawdor has a couple of good if not easy jump scares.
Thriller: A Haunting in Cawdor does keep us wondering to where it will end up going.
Settings: A Haunting in Cawdor uses the setting well putting our characters in an isolated location with a past tragic event.
Special Effects: A Haunting in Cawdor has good effects when needed without using them too much.
Suggestion: A Haunting in Cawdor is one for the horror fans to try. (Horror Fans Try)
Best Part: Hauntings all come off nicely.
Worst Part: Too much on the camp atmosphere.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: The Gallows
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $1.2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: Recent parolee tortured by the curse of Macbeth
Overall: Tidy horror that has good scares around the rehabilitation idea behind the film.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/02/15/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-a-haunting-in-cawbor-2015/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Darth Vader (1 more)
Fits nicely with the rest of the series
What's Old Is New
So our yearly Star Wars movie has arrived and after a complicated production it has released to rave reviews, with some outlets going as far as to compare it in quality to Empire Strikes Back, (which is widely considered to be the superior Star Wars film,) and it has even garnered a fair amount of Oscar buzz. This, along with the fact it’s a Star Wars movie meant that my expectations for this were pretty high going in and after seeing the movie there are parts of the flick that I loved and parts that I didn’t. When I wrote my Force Awakens review last year, I wrote both a spoiler free and a spoiler filled version of the review, but this year I have less time on my hands, so from this point on this will be a spoiler filled review, but the movie has been out for almost a week at the time of writing this, so if you haven’t seen the movie yet and are reading my review, well that is your own fault.
This movie for the most part impressed me. I loved how well it tied into A New Hope and how it actually fixed that movie’s biggest plothole by explaining that the weak point in the Death Star was installed on purpose by Galen Erso while designing the battle station under the Empire’s thumb, so that the Rebels would have a chance to destroy it. I loved how the movie had the balls to kills off the entire crew of the Rogue One team at the end of the movie and that corridor scene at the end with Vader was possibly the best scene I’ve seen in the cinema this year, it’s definitely up there with the airport scene in Civil War. Those are the stand out positives of the movie for me, however there were also a few flaws throughout the film.
First of all, that Grand Mof Tarkin CGI recreation of Peter Cushing was awful, the whole thing looked like a character from the Star Wars animated series. When he is first introduced it is through a glass reflection on a window he is looking out of and in that part of the scene it was fairly convincing, however he then turns around and the camera moves to a medium close up shot and all of a sudden it feels like watching a video game cutscene. Guy Henry was the actor who did the motion capture for Tarkin and that actor actually looks relatively similar to Peter Cushing, so why they didn’t just apply some makeup to Guy Henry and dye his hair gray to resemble Cushing more and recast the Tarkin role is a mystery to me, it would have also been a lot cheaper than the method that they went with. Either that or he should have only been seen in the reflection of the glass, since that was the only time that the CGI effect actually looked convincing. However, I did think that the CGI recreation of 1970’s Carrie Fischer at the end of the movie was very convincing and if it wasn’t for the movement in her mouth, I wouldn’t have known that was a CGI character. Another flaw I had with the movie was the how rushed and choppy the first act was, the characters were all introduced quickly and vaguely, then it took them ages to actually form up as a team. I get that introducing a whole cast of brand new characters in a short space of time isn’t easy, but Tarantino pulls it off in Hateful 8 and Inglorious Bastards and it works a lot better than it works here.
In a lot of ways Rogue One is a contrast to Force Awakens. In Force Awakens, the plot was essentially the same as A New Hope and was a fairly by the book, traditional Star Wars story, but the characters were what made that movie, if Poe Dameron, Rey, Finn, Kylo Ren, Han and Chewie weren’t as well written, that movie would have been mediocre at best. In Rogue One, the characters are pretty shallow and underdeveloped and they are introduced quickly and by the end of the movie none of them have really had a proper character arc. However that is not what this movie is about, this film is about a team of people coming together in order to complete a task to set up the events of the original trilogy and in that sense this movie does what it sets out to do. An example of this is the robot character K2SO, who I thought was going to start off with no humanity, then over the course of the movie realize the value of human life and then sacrifice himself for the greater good at the movie’s climax, but it turns out that the only real reason that he is helping the Rebels, is because he has been programmed to do so. This I feel sums up the level of character development present in the movie and demonstrates that it is not necessary in the film as that isn’t the movie’s purpose. What Force Awakens lacked in an original plot, it made up for in character development and what Rogue One lacks in character development, it makes up for in plot and setup, so both movies have their strengths and their flaws. Bearing in mind that I have only seen Rogue One once so far, I currently prefer Force Awakens to Rogue One, but then I prefer Return of the Jedi to Empire, so maybe that’s just me.
The writing moves the story along at a brisk pace, but it is effective in that you are constantly kept aware of where we are and what is happening at least from the end of the first act onwards. The performances are also suitable to the characters in each role, but I wouldn’t say anyone was incredible, my personal favourite was Cassian, the Alliance’s trigger finger who had shades of Han Solo thrown in as well. While watching Diego Luna’s performance, I actually thought he would be a good pick to play Nathan Drake in the Uncharted movie. The lighting in the film is well used and the CGI is spectacular for the most part other than weird waxwork Peter Cushing. The space battles are breathtaking and the action on the ground is also exciting.
Now, let’s talk about the characters that weren’t part of the Rogue One team. Forest Whittaker and Mads Mikkelson are two of my favourite actors working in Hollywood today and they are both in this movie, but I feel that both could have been used more. When they are onscreen, they are brilliant, it’s just a pity they make up such a small part of the movie. Whittaker appears only to be killed off minutes later and Mikkelson is only in two major scenes outside of a brief hologram appearance and then also gets killed off unceremoniously. The reason that a lot of people will go and see this movie however, will be to see Darth Vader. He isn’t in the movie much, but when he is it is fantastic. All of this reminds me a lot of Edwards’ last movie Godzilla, where Bryan Cranston and the monster were clearly the best parts of that movie, but for some reason were hardly in the thing. It’s as if Edwards has this idea in his head that less is always more and if he doesn’t show what people want to see in the movie for more than a few minutes at a time, then he is being original and artistic. While I understand this way of thinking from an auteur perspective, it’s fucking Star Wars and Godzilla mate, just give the people what they want. It is far less of an issue here however, since the rest of the cast in Rogue One are far more compelling than the rest of the cast in Godzilla.
Anyway, back to Vader. We first see Vader when Krennic goes to see him in his Imperial Castle in Mustafar, the same location that he was relieved of his limbs and burnt alive in a pool of lava. The way he is introduced is awesome, when Krennic arrives one of Vader’s cloaked minions enters a large room containing an ominous bacta tank, which we see Vader floating in without his suit on. This is the most vulnerable we have ever seen Vader since we saw him getting his suit fitted for the first time in Revenge Of The Sith. The tank empties and we see Vader’s stumps where his arms and legs once were and we see the burnt skin that covers his torso. Then we cut to him in full costume, complete with the classic James Earl Jones voice and force choking Krennic. He then disappears again for most of the movie, until the second to last scene where he is at his most powerful and this could genuinely be my favourite Vader scene of all time, perhaps even beating the infamous, ‘I am your father,’ scene from Empire. Vader in this scene is pure raw anger and power and the way the scene is shot and lit is fucking perfect, the audio and the editing fantastic also. The scene opens with a dark corridor with Rebels scrambling to get the hard drive containing the Death Star plans to the other end of the corridor and onto the ship that Leia is on, so that she can go on to get the plans into R2 in order to kick off A New Hope’s events. At first you wonder why the Rebels are in such a panic then you hear the terrifying breathing from Vader’s suit, but he still isn’t shown. Then the first and only lightsaber in the movie is sparked and it illuminates Vader in all of his terrifying glory before he starts tearing through the Rebels like a monster in a horror movie. This minute long scene is one of the best I’ve seen this year and it alone made the ticket price worth it for me.
Overall, Rogue One was essentially what I thought it would be based on the trailers. I don’t personally understand the overblown critical fanfare that the movie is receiving, but I’m glad that Star Wars fans like it. There are many parts of the movie that could be considered polarizing, such as the lack of Vader scenes, the dodgy Tarkin CGI, the fact that the entire Rogue One squad is killed off at the end of the movie, the absence of an opening crawl and Forest Whittaker’s raspy voice, which admittedly takes a bit of getting used to. Some of these elements I loved and some I hated, but for the most part this is an enjoyable addition to the Star Wars saga, I love how well it ties into and sets up the events of the films following this one and it was an added bonus that they actually resolved some of the original trilogy’s flaws. As I said earlier, I still prefer The Force Awakens to this, but I can see how an argument could be made for this one being a better movie.
This movie for the most part impressed me. I loved how well it tied into A New Hope and how it actually fixed that movie’s biggest plothole by explaining that the weak point in the Death Star was installed on purpose by Galen Erso while designing the battle station under the Empire’s thumb, so that the Rebels would have a chance to destroy it. I loved how the movie had the balls to kills off the entire crew of the Rogue One team at the end of the movie and that corridor scene at the end with Vader was possibly the best scene I’ve seen in the cinema this year, it’s definitely up there with the airport scene in Civil War. Those are the stand out positives of the movie for me, however there were also a few flaws throughout the film.
First of all, that Grand Mof Tarkin CGI recreation of Peter Cushing was awful, the whole thing looked like a character from the Star Wars animated series. When he is first introduced it is through a glass reflection on a window he is looking out of and in that part of the scene it was fairly convincing, however he then turns around and the camera moves to a medium close up shot and all of a sudden it feels like watching a video game cutscene. Guy Henry was the actor who did the motion capture for Tarkin and that actor actually looks relatively similar to Peter Cushing, so why they didn’t just apply some makeup to Guy Henry and dye his hair gray to resemble Cushing more and recast the Tarkin role is a mystery to me, it would have also been a lot cheaper than the method that they went with. Either that or he should have only been seen in the reflection of the glass, since that was the only time that the CGI effect actually looked convincing. However, I did think that the CGI recreation of 1970’s Carrie Fischer at the end of the movie was very convincing and if it wasn’t for the movement in her mouth, I wouldn’t have known that was a CGI character. Another flaw I had with the movie was the how rushed and choppy the first act was, the characters were all introduced quickly and vaguely, then it took them ages to actually form up as a team. I get that introducing a whole cast of brand new characters in a short space of time isn’t easy, but Tarantino pulls it off in Hateful 8 and Inglorious Bastards and it works a lot better than it works here.
In a lot of ways Rogue One is a contrast to Force Awakens. In Force Awakens, the plot was essentially the same as A New Hope and was a fairly by the book, traditional Star Wars story, but the characters were what made that movie, if Poe Dameron, Rey, Finn, Kylo Ren, Han and Chewie weren’t as well written, that movie would have been mediocre at best. In Rogue One, the characters are pretty shallow and underdeveloped and they are introduced quickly and by the end of the movie none of them have really had a proper character arc. However that is not what this movie is about, this film is about a team of people coming together in order to complete a task to set up the events of the original trilogy and in that sense this movie does what it sets out to do. An example of this is the robot character K2SO, who I thought was going to start off with no humanity, then over the course of the movie realize the value of human life and then sacrifice himself for the greater good at the movie’s climax, but it turns out that the only real reason that he is helping the Rebels, is because he has been programmed to do so. This I feel sums up the level of character development present in the movie and demonstrates that it is not necessary in the film as that isn’t the movie’s purpose. What Force Awakens lacked in an original plot, it made up for in character development and what Rogue One lacks in character development, it makes up for in plot and setup, so both movies have their strengths and their flaws. Bearing in mind that I have only seen Rogue One once so far, I currently prefer Force Awakens to Rogue One, but then I prefer Return of the Jedi to Empire, so maybe that’s just me.
The writing moves the story along at a brisk pace, but it is effective in that you are constantly kept aware of where we are and what is happening at least from the end of the first act onwards. The performances are also suitable to the characters in each role, but I wouldn’t say anyone was incredible, my personal favourite was Cassian, the Alliance’s trigger finger who had shades of Han Solo thrown in as well. While watching Diego Luna’s performance, I actually thought he would be a good pick to play Nathan Drake in the Uncharted movie. The lighting in the film is well used and the CGI is spectacular for the most part other than weird waxwork Peter Cushing. The space battles are breathtaking and the action on the ground is also exciting.
Now, let’s talk about the characters that weren’t part of the Rogue One team. Forest Whittaker and Mads Mikkelson are two of my favourite actors working in Hollywood today and they are both in this movie, but I feel that both could have been used more. When they are onscreen, they are brilliant, it’s just a pity they make up such a small part of the movie. Whittaker appears only to be killed off minutes later and Mikkelson is only in two major scenes outside of a brief hologram appearance and then also gets killed off unceremoniously. The reason that a lot of people will go and see this movie however, will be to see Darth Vader. He isn’t in the movie much, but when he is it is fantastic. All of this reminds me a lot of Edwards’ last movie Godzilla, where Bryan Cranston and the monster were clearly the best parts of that movie, but for some reason were hardly in the thing. It’s as if Edwards has this idea in his head that less is always more and if he doesn’t show what people want to see in the movie for more than a few minutes at a time, then he is being original and artistic. While I understand this way of thinking from an auteur perspective, it’s fucking Star Wars and Godzilla mate, just give the people what they want. It is far less of an issue here however, since the rest of the cast in Rogue One are far more compelling than the rest of the cast in Godzilla.
Anyway, back to Vader. We first see Vader when Krennic goes to see him in his Imperial Castle in Mustafar, the same location that he was relieved of his limbs and burnt alive in a pool of lava. The way he is introduced is awesome, when Krennic arrives one of Vader’s cloaked minions enters a large room containing an ominous bacta tank, which we see Vader floating in without his suit on. This is the most vulnerable we have ever seen Vader since we saw him getting his suit fitted for the first time in Revenge Of The Sith. The tank empties and we see Vader’s stumps where his arms and legs once were and we see the burnt skin that covers his torso. Then we cut to him in full costume, complete with the classic James Earl Jones voice and force choking Krennic. He then disappears again for most of the movie, until the second to last scene where he is at his most powerful and this could genuinely be my favourite Vader scene of all time, perhaps even beating the infamous, ‘I am your father,’ scene from Empire. Vader in this scene is pure raw anger and power and the way the scene is shot and lit is fucking perfect, the audio and the editing fantastic also. The scene opens with a dark corridor with Rebels scrambling to get the hard drive containing the Death Star plans to the other end of the corridor and onto the ship that Leia is on, so that she can go on to get the plans into R2 in order to kick off A New Hope’s events. At first you wonder why the Rebels are in such a panic then you hear the terrifying breathing from Vader’s suit, but he still isn’t shown. Then the first and only lightsaber in the movie is sparked and it illuminates Vader in all of his terrifying glory before he starts tearing through the Rebels like a monster in a horror movie. This minute long scene is one of the best I’ve seen this year and it alone made the ticket price worth it for me.
Overall, Rogue One was essentially what I thought it would be based on the trailers. I don’t personally understand the overblown critical fanfare that the movie is receiving, but I’m glad that Star Wars fans like it. There are many parts of the movie that could be considered polarizing, such as the lack of Vader scenes, the dodgy Tarkin CGI, the fact that the entire Rogue One squad is killed off at the end of the movie, the absence of an opening crawl and Forest Whittaker’s raspy voice, which admittedly takes a bit of getting used to. Some of these elements I loved and some I hated, but for the most part this is an enjoyable addition to the Star Wars saga, I love how well it ties into and sets up the events of the films following this one and it was an added bonus that they actually resolved some of the original trilogy’s flaws. As I said earlier, I still prefer The Force Awakens to this, but I can see how an argument could be made for this one being a better movie.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Sharp Objects in TV
Oct 4, 2018 (Updated Oct 4, 2018)
Boring and drawn out (1 more)
Terrible ending
Overrated and Slow
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was looking forward to Sharp Objects when it premiered earlier this year. I love a whodunit thriller and am a fan of Gone Girl, Gillian Flynn's other adapted novel. I also read a bunch of glowing reviews before I dove into this series that promised an engaging, gripping story, which just made me more excited to get through the show.
Unfortunately, gripping isn't the word I would choose to describe this show. Engaging maybe, in that even though none of the characters that you are following are very likable, you do have a morbid curiosity to see what is going to happen to them. To be honest though, this series is only 8 episodes long and it was a slog to try and get through. Each episode drags something awful, to the point that 3 episodes in, I was ready to give up on this series. Then my girlfriend reminded me that it is only a limited series and will be worth sticking with to find out who the killer is in the end. Well, she was wrong about that last part, but we'll get back to that later.
I am not a huge Amy Adams fan, I feel that other than Arrival, she pretty much does the exact same thing in any role she is in. In this, she actually puts in a decent performance, it's more the way that her character is written that I take issue with. Camille is a whiney, dour character that is a drag to watch and none of the characters around her are any better. Her mother is a bitter, nasty old cow and her younger sister is an arrogant, immature little shit.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know if the pacing issues that the show has are inherent to the source material or the fault of the filmmakers. Either way, they are present and they are a detriment to this show. Every episode ends on an ambiguously exciting moment in order to keep you watching, then when the following episode picks up, it doesn't address whatever mad shit it just dropped on you at the end of the previous episode, to the point that I was left wondering a few times if I had actually missed out an episode in-between. Then it just drones on for another dull hour before dropping another inexplicable, shocking moment and it rinses and repeats this process throughout the entire series.
*SPOILERS FROM HERE ON*
This also applies to the last episode, which ends with such a nonsensical, out-of-nowhere twist that is never justified or explained. It is a classic example of having a twist, simply for the sake of ending on a twist. A good twist ending makes a reveal that causes everything that the viewer has seen so far click into place, it explains everything at once and that is why endings to stories like Fight Club, Mr Robot and The Sixth Sense are so satisfying. This makes the viewer want to go back and re-watch the film or series again with the new knowledge of what is going to happen in their mind in order to see it from a different perspective and spot the hints that point towards the big reveal. A bad twist ending drops a bomb abruptly and offers no explanation to the bombshell and leaves the viewer baffled and annoyed.
That is what happens with Sharp Objects' ending. There is absolutely no precedent to Amma being the killer. When Adora got arrested, it was underwhelming but there was at least some precedent for Adora to be the killer based on her other messed up behaviour, which provided some explanation, but Amma makes literally no sense. They could honestly have picked any other character on the show to be the killer and it would have made more sense. There is a weird post credits scene that I feel that was put in as a half-arsed explanation for the nonsensical twist, but it really doesn't help matters any. Again, I haven't read the book so I don't know if the ending plays out the same way as the source material, or if it makes any more sense in the book, but in the show it is a mess.
Overall this is a slow burn that isn't even worth the slog of getting through thanks to a hugely disappointing payoff. The ending is the main reason that this only gets a 5. One of the most overrated things I've seen this year.
Unfortunately, gripping isn't the word I would choose to describe this show. Engaging maybe, in that even though none of the characters that you are following are very likable, you do have a morbid curiosity to see what is going to happen to them. To be honest though, this series is only 8 episodes long and it was a slog to try and get through. Each episode drags something awful, to the point that 3 episodes in, I was ready to give up on this series. Then my girlfriend reminded me that it is only a limited series and will be worth sticking with to find out who the killer is in the end. Well, she was wrong about that last part, but we'll get back to that later.
I am not a huge Amy Adams fan, I feel that other than Arrival, she pretty much does the exact same thing in any role she is in. In this, she actually puts in a decent performance, it's more the way that her character is written that I take issue with. Camille is a whiney, dour character that is a drag to watch and none of the characters around her are any better. Her mother is a bitter, nasty old cow and her younger sister is an arrogant, immature little shit.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know if the pacing issues that the show has are inherent to the source material or the fault of the filmmakers. Either way, they are present and they are a detriment to this show. Every episode ends on an ambiguously exciting moment in order to keep you watching, then when the following episode picks up, it doesn't address whatever mad shit it just dropped on you at the end of the previous episode, to the point that I was left wondering a few times if I had actually missed out an episode in-between. Then it just drones on for another dull hour before dropping another inexplicable, shocking moment and it rinses and repeats this process throughout the entire series.
*SPOILERS FROM HERE ON*
This also applies to the last episode, which ends with such a nonsensical, out-of-nowhere twist that is never justified or explained. It is a classic example of having a twist, simply for the sake of ending on a twist. A good twist ending makes a reveal that causes everything that the viewer has seen so far click into place, it explains everything at once and that is why endings to stories like Fight Club, Mr Robot and The Sixth Sense are so satisfying. This makes the viewer want to go back and re-watch the film or series again with the new knowledge of what is going to happen in their mind in order to see it from a different perspective and spot the hints that point towards the big reveal. A bad twist ending drops a bomb abruptly and offers no explanation to the bombshell and leaves the viewer baffled and annoyed.
That is what happens with Sharp Objects' ending. There is absolutely no precedent to Amma being the killer. When Adora got arrested, it was underwhelming but there was at least some precedent for Adora to be the killer based on her other messed up behaviour, which provided some explanation, but Amma makes literally no sense. They could honestly have picked any other character on the show to be the killer and it would have made more sense. There is a weird post credits scene that I feel that was put in as a half-arsed explanation for the nonsensical twist, but it really doesn't help matters any. Again, I haven't read the book so I don't know if the ending plays out the same way as the source material, or if it makes any more sense in the book, but in the show it is a mess.
Overall this is a slow burn that isn't even worth the slog of getting through thanks to a hugely disappointing payoff. The ending is the main reason that this only gets a 5. One of the most overrated things I've seen this year.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Hunger Games in Books
Nov 7, 2019
The Hunger Games is a trilogy of YA dystopian novels written by American author Suzanne Collins. The story is set in an unspecified future, in a dystopian, post-apocalyptic nation of Panem located in North America. The country consists of the Wealthy Capital surrounded by the twelve (Originally thirteen) poorer districts, each one in various states of poverty. The story follows Katniss Everdeen as she takes her sisters place in the annual Hunger Games. The games are a televised event created as punishment for a past rebellion. Over the course of the books Katniss and the rest of Panem are plunged into Civil War thanks to Katniss inadvertently fuelling a hidden rebel fraction led by President Alma Coin of (the previously thought to be destroyed) District 13. After going through hell, loosing friends and the sister she tried to protect Katniss is eventually tried for killing Coin at the execution of Ex-President Snow and sent back to District 12. Katniss eventually marries fellow tribute Peeta Mellark (whom she was tied to during the games as the pair of star-crossed lovers) and eventually have two children a boy and a girl. Author Suzanne Collins stated that the inspiration for the story came to her after channel surfing through TV channels, having seen a reality show on one channel then saw footage of the Iraq invasion. The two began to blur in an unsettling way and the idea started to form. The Greek myth of Theseus also served as a basis for the story, with Collins saying that Katniss could be called a future Theseus and The Hunger Games being an interpretation of the old gladiatorial games.
The Hunger Games the titular book was released on September 14th 2008 under the publishing house Scholastic Press. The book had an initial print run of 50,00 copies eventually being bumped up twice to 200,000 copies. By February 2010 the book had sold 800,000 copies and rights to the novel have been sold in 38 territories. In November 2008 The Hunger Games was placed on the New York Times best seller list where it would remain for 100 weeks (just over three months). By the time the books film adaption released in march 2012 the book had been on USA Today's best seller list for 135 weeks (Four months) and sold over 17.5 million copies. The book received several awards and honours such as Publishers Weekley's “Best book of the year 2008”, the New York Times “Notable children's book 2008” and was the 2009 young adult fiction category winner of the Golden Duck award. The book also received the California Young Reader medal in 2011.
Catching Fire, the second book was published on September 1st 2009 under Scholastic. As the sequel to the Hunger Games book it continues the story of Katniss Everdeen and the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem as rebellion begins. The book received mixed reviews but was placed on Time Magazines Top 100 fiction list of 2009. Catching fire had an initial print of 350,00 copies but was (Like its predecessor) had grown to 750,00 by February 2010. The book has sold over 10 million copies.
Mocking-jay the third and final book in the Hunger Games Trilogy and was published August 24th 2010 by Scholastic. The book had a 1.2 million copy print that was bumped up from 750,000 copies and in its first week sold over 450,00 copies. Reviews were favourable with the book and notes that it thoroughly explores the themes of the other books.
I really love the books and regularly read them. Whenever I do read them I tend to read all three of them in the space of a week. To be fair whilst I had heard of them before the first movie release I didn't start reading them until I'd seen the first movie. I did read Catching Fire and Mockingjay before their movie equivalents hit the screens. Whilst The Hunger Games was a brilliant opener and Mockingjay was a brilliant ender, I agree with a few reviewers that Catching fire had a delayed start and it took a bit of time to get into the action of the story at large.
Suzanne Collins was born in Hartford Connecticut on the 10th of August 1962 as the youngest fourth child to Jane Bradley Collins and Lt. Col. Michael Jon Collins a decorated U. S. Air Force officer. As a daughter of a military man she was constantly moving with her family and spent her childhood in the eastern united states. Collins went to the Alabama school of fine arts in Birmingham 1980 as a theatre arts Major. Collins went on to complete a Bachelor of arts from Indiana University in 1985 and telecommunications and in 1989 Collins earned her M. F. A. in dramatic writing from NYU Tisch school of arts. Collins began her career in 1991 as a writer for children's television shows and won a nomination in animation for co-writing the critically acclaimed Christmas special Santa, Baby!. Collins after meeting James Proimos whilst working on a children's show felt the urge to write children's books and spent the early 2000's writing five books of the Underland Chronicles; Gregor the Overlander, Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane, Gregor and the curse of the Warmbloods, Gregor and the Marks of Secret and Gregor and the Code of Claw. The influence for those books came from Alice in Wonderland. During the late 2000's she ends up writing the Hunger Games trilogy which went onto a famous movie trilogy. As the result of the hunger games trilogy popularity Collins was named one of Times Magazine's most Influential people of 2010. On June 17th 2019 Collins announced she was writing a prequel to the Hunger Games and is scheduled to be released on 19th May 2020, the book is to focus on the failed rebellion 64 years before the Hunger Games trilogy.
I highly respect the Author Suzanne Collins for both her work as a writer of Children's media and for her creativity in creating both the Hunger Games and the Underland Chronicles. Her creativity has been awarded with her books popularity and being announced amongst Time Magazine's 2010's most influential people and Amazons best selling Kindle author in 2012.
In March 2009 Lions Gate Entertainment entered into a co-production agreement with Nina Jacobson's Production company Color Force for the Hunger Games. Novel writer Suzanne Collins adapted the book in collaboration with screenwriter Billy Ray and Director Gary Ross. Actors Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson and Liam Hemsworth were hired for the roles of Katniss, Peeta and Gale respectively. Lawrence was four years older than Katniss was in the books but Collins said she would rather the actress be older than the character since it demanded a certain maturity and power. Collins also liked Lawrence stating she was the “only one who truly captured the character I wrote in the book”. The Hunger Games Movie was released on march 23rd 2012. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was released on November 22nd 2013 with Francis Lawrence being hired as Director and actors Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jena Malone and Sam Claflin being hired as Plutarch Heavensbee, Johanna Mason and Finneck Odair respectively. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay was split into 2 and Part 1 was released on November 21st 2014 and part 2 on November 20th 2015 Francis Lawrence remained Director for the final movies with Actor Julianne Moore joining the cast as President Alma Coin.
I loved the movies point blank and whilst it has its flaws like most movies often do I think its redeeming quality has been it faithfulness in sticking to the books as closely as possible and the actors representation of Suzanne Collins characters such as Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, Donald Sunderland and President Snow, Stanley Tucci as Ceaser Flickerman, Woody Harrelson as Haymich Abernathy and Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinkett. Whilst all the actors were very good and were chosen well for their characters. These actors in particular I feel did exceptionally well in bringing their characters to life especially Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson but then I am a very big fan of theirs so I may be a little biased.
The Hunger Games the titular book was released on September 14th 2008 under the publishing house Scholastic Press. The book had an initial print run of 50,00 copies eventually being bumped up twice to 200,000 copies. By February 2010 the book had sold 800,000 copies and rights to the novel have been sold in 38 territories. In November 2008 The Hunger Games was placed on the New York Times best seller list where it would remain for 100 weeks (just over three months). By the time the books film adaption released in march 2012 the book had been on USA Today's best seller list for 135 weeks (Four months) and sold over 17.5 million copies. The book received several awards and honours such as Publishers Weekley's “Best book of the year 2008”, the New York Times “Notable children's book 2008” and was the 2009 young adult fiction category winner of the Golden Duck award. The book also received the California Young Reader medal in 2011.
Catching Fire, the second book was published on September 1st 2009 under Scholastic. As the sequel to the Hunger Games book it continues the story of Katniss Everdeen and the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem as rebellion begins. The book received mixed reviews but was placed on Time Magazines Top 100 fiction list of 2009. Catching fire had an initial print of 350,00 copies but was (Like its predecessor) had grown to 750,00 by February 2010. The book has sold over 10 million copies.
Mocking-jay the third and final book in the Hunger Games Trilogy and was published August 24th 2010 by Scholastic. The book had a 1.2 million copy print that was bumped up from 750,000 copies and in its first week sold over 450,00 copies. Reviews were favourable with the book and notes that it thoroughly explores the themes of the other books.
I really love the books and regularly read them. Whenever I do read them I tend to read all three of them in the space of a week. To be fair whilst I had heard of them before the first movie release I didn't start reading them until I'd seen the first movie. I did read Catching Fire and Mockingjay before their movie equivalents hit the screens. Whilst The Hunger Games was a brilliant opener and Mockingjay was a brilliant ender, I agree with a few reviewers that Catching fire had a delayed start and it took a bit of time to get into the action of the story at large.
Suzanne Collins was born in Hartford Connecticut on the 10th of August 1962 as the youngest fourth child to Jane Bradley Collins and Lt. Col. Michael Jon Collins a decorated U. S. Air Force officer. As a daughter of a military man she was constantly moving with her family and spent her childhood in the eastern united states. Collins went to the Alabama school of fine arts in Birmingham 1980 as a theatre arts Major. Collins went on to complete a Bachelor of arts from Indiana University in 1985 and telecommunications and in 1989 Collins earned her M. F. A. in dramatic writing from NYU Tisch school of arts. Collins began her career in 1991 as a writer for children's television shows and won a nomination in animation for co-writing the critically acclaimed Christmas special Santa, Baby!. Collins after meeting James Proimos whilst working on a children's show felt the urge to write children's books and spent the early 2000's writing five books of the Underland Chronicles; Gregor the Overlander, Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane, Gregor and the curse of the Warmbloods, Gregor and the Marks of Secret and Gregor and the Code of Claw. The influence for those books came from Alice in Wonderland. During the late 2000's she ends up writing the Hunger Games trilogy which went onto a famous movie trilogy. As the result of the hunger games trilogy popularity Collins was named one of Times Magazine's most Influential people of 2010. On June 17th 2019 Collins announced she was writing a prequel to the Hunger Games and is scheduled to be released on 19th May 2020, the book is to focus on the failed rebellion 64 years before the Hunger Games trilogy.
I highly respect the Author Suzanne Collins for both her work as a writer of Children's media and for her creativity in creating both the Hunger Games and the Underland Chronicles. Her creativity has been awarded with her books popularity and being announced amongst Time Magazine's 2010's most influential people and Amazons best selling Kindle author in 2012.
In March 2009 Lions Gate Entertainment entered into a co-production agreement with Nina Jacobson's Production company Color Force for the Hunger Games. Novel writer Suzanne Collins adapted the book in collaboration with screenwriter Billy Ray and Director Gary Ross. Actors Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson and Liam Hemsworth were hired for the roles of Katniss, Peeta and Gale respectively. Lawrence was four years older than Katniss was in the books but Collins said she would rather the actress be older than the character since it demanded a certain maturity and power. Collins also liked Lawrence stating she was the “only one who truly captured the character I wrote in the book”. The Hunger Games Movie was released on march 23rd 2012. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was released on November 22nd 2013 with Francis Lawrence being hired as Director and actors Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jena Malone and Sam Claflin being hired as Plutarch Heavensbee, Johanna Mason and Finneck Odair respectively. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay was split into 2 and Part 1 was released on November 21st 2014 and part 2 on November 20th 2015 Francis Lawrence remained Director for the final movies with Actor Julianne Moore joining the cast as President Alma Coin.
I loved the movies point blank and whilst it has its flaws like most movies often do I think its redeeming quality has been it faithfulness in sticking to the books as closely as possible and the actors representation of Suzanne Collins characters such as Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, Donald Sunderland and President Snow, Stanley Tucci as Ceaser Flickerman, Woody Harrelson as Haymich Abernathy and Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinkett. Whilst all the actors were very good and were chosen well for their characters. These actors in particular I feel did exceptionally well in bringing their characters to life especially Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson but then I am a very big fan of theirs so I may be a little biased.
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated The Hobbit in Books
Nov 5, 2018
See the latest version of this review over on Ramble Media http://www.ramblemedia.com/?p=19585
Wow, am I glad that watching the film made me want to reread this timeless classic! I first read this as an eleven year old at school, trying to prove a point to a teacher that a child could read a book like this. I succeeded in reading it, thought the fantasy great, but remembered very little of the story or the fact there was another epic adventure waiting to be told by the much praised JRR Tolkien.
How I have missed out! The story follows a very plain, and at times fussy, Mr Baggins of Bagend, a Hobbit of Hobbiton, in the 'reasonable West', as he takes an adventure, in the company of 'dwarves' to save their long forsaken home. The company encounter many trials and tribulations along the way, from angry goblins, to giant spiders, to meddlesome elves and even Smaug the Terrible, but they triumph over them all.
Honestly, I cannot give praise enough for the book, and many have done so before in, what I am sure, will be better expressed reviews and accolades of praise, so I will aim to keep this short and sweet, picking up on key, outstanding features that bowled me over. The first thing I have to raise is the characterisation. The 'cast' of assembled characters, from the main company of the dwarves, to the helpers and and those that hinder them along their journey, are all thoroughly well explained by the creative use of authorial voice in the narration of events. Mr Baggins is, although a little fussy at times, an incredibly likable character, as I'm sure most hobbits are, who's funny outbursts and ideas make him the comedy relief at tense times. He is also, without a doubt, the brains and drive behind the adventure, once Gandalf has left, and proves that anyone, no matter how small can be a hero - a great quality to see in a major character who is less 'normal' than most as too often it's the popular, stereotypical heroes that dominate literature! Thorin and his company of bedraggled dwarves are a barrel of laughs at times (no pun intended!) and are all well developed in what is a relatively short story.
And that, I suppose, is the best feature of this book, for me at least! The development of plot, characters, scenery and everything else you could possibly wish to know about anyone involved in a story (eg background history etc) is all given to you in abundance, but they never overpower each other, they are instead woven intricately together in a brand of storytelling that belongs in oral tradition, not in words on a page. It is clear, especially after reading the foreword, that the Hobbit originated as a story to be told, not read, and incredibly, that makes it all the more readable as it hooks you in a way few books ever will. It aims to drag you, however reluctantly or willingly, into the adventure and take you away from your own little, safe, hobbit hole across the Shire and the Wild, and everywhere else they travel, with you feeling completely immersed as the final member of the company, but one who goes as unnoticed by the others as if you were wearing Bilbo's ring. However, the extremely clever thing that Tolkien does, and of this I am supremely envious of as I wish I could do this in my own writing, is that even though you feel so well informed, you still want to know more about them, and for the creative among us, we want to fill those gaps with our own imagination! Very rarely do I come across an author who manages to inform, excite, engage, and engender creativity in such a way in under 300 pages.
Finally, I guess I have to give credit to the wonderful drawings accompanying the text. Beautifully drawn, incredibly supportive of your own imaginative process, yet strangely, not limiting in letting you continue to let your imagination wander. The are a wonderful addition to the book, and I say that as someone who doesn't think a real book should have pictures, and add a greater accessibility to all of the new experiences you encounter as you travel through the story to the Lonely Mountain at the end.
And so, I draw my ramblings to a close, however there is plenty more to be said, that will be left unsaid, partly due to my desire to go and read Lord of the Rings for the first time as a result of reading The Hobbit. I can only conclude with the highest praise for this story, and the highest level of recommendation to anyone who has not yet read it, or those like me that think because they read it as a child it counts. This is a book that should, and deserves, to be read over and over again, and one of those occasions should be reading it aloud to a child, as that, is the only way to truly experience the wonderful story weaved by a master storyteller.
Wow, am I glad that watching the film made me want to reread this timeless classic! I first read this as an eleven year old at school, trying to prove a point to a teacher that a child could read a book like this. I succeeded in reading it, thought the fantasy great, but remembered very little of the story or the fact there was another epic adventure waiting to be told by the much praised JRR Tolkien.
How I have missed out! The story follows a very plain, and at times fussy, Mr Baggins of Bagend, a Hobbit of Hobbiton, in the 'reasonable West', as he takes an adventure, in the company of 'dwarves' to save their long forsaken home. The company encounter many trials and tribulations along the way, from angry goblins, to giant spiders, to meddlesome elves and even Smaug the Terrible, but they triumph over them all.
Honestly, I cannot give praise enough for the book, and many have done so before in, what I am sure, will be better expressed reviews and accolades of praise, so I will aim to keep this short and sweet, picking up on key, outstanding features that bowled me over. The first thing I have to raise is the characterisation. The 'cast' of assembled characters, from the main company of the dwarves, to the helpers and and those that hinder them along their journey, are all thoroughly well explained by the creative use of authorial voice in the narration of events. Mr Baggins is, although a little fussy at times, an incredibly likable character, as I'm sure most hobbits are, who's funny outbursts and ideas make him the comedy relief at tense times. He is also, without a doubt, the brains and drive behind the adventure, once Gandalf has left, and proves that anyone, no matter how small can be a hero - a great quality to see in a major character who is less 'normal' than most as too often it's the popular, stereotypical heroes that dominate literature! Thorin and his company of bedraggled dwarves are a barrel of laughs at times (no pun intended!) and are all well developed in what is a relatively short story.
And that, I suppose, is the best feature of this book, for me at least! The development of plot, characters, scenery and everything else you could possibly wish to know about anyone involved in a story (eg background history etc) is all given to you in abundance, but they never overpower each other, they are instead woven intricately together in a brand of storytelling that belongs in oral tradition, not in words on a page. It is clear, especially after reading the foreword, that the Hobbit originated as a story to be told, not read, and incredibly, that makes it all the more readable as it hooks you in a way few books ever will. It aims to drag you, however reluctantly or willingly, into the adventure and take you away from your own little, safe, hobbit hole across the Shire and the Wild, and everywhere else they travel, with you feeling completely immersed as the final member of the company, but one who goes as unnoticed by the others as if you were wearing Bilbo's ring. However, the extremely clever thing that Tolkien does, and of this I am supremely envious of as I wish I could do this in my own writing, is that even though you feel so well informed, you still want to know more about them, and for the creative among us, we want to fill those gaps with our own imagination! Very rarely do I come across an author who manages to inform, excite, engage, and engender creativity in such a way in under 300 pages.
Finally, I guess I have to give credit to the wonderful drawings accompanying the text. Beautifully drawn, incredibly supportive of your own imaginative process, yet strangely, not limiting in letting you continue to let your imagination wander. The are a wonderful addition to the book, and I say that as someone who doesn't think a real book should have pictures, and add a greater accessibility to all of the new experiences you encounter as you travel through the story to the Lonely Mountain at the end.
And so, I draw my ramblings to a close, however there is plenty more to be said, that will be left unsaid, partly due to my desire to go and read Lord of the Rings for the first time as a result of reading The Hobbit. I can only conclude with the highest praise for this story, and the highest level of recommendation to anyone who has not yet read it, or those like me that think because they read it as a child it counts. This is a book that should, and deserves, to be read over and over again, and one of those occasions should be reading it aloud to a child, as that, is the only way to truly experience the wonderful story weaved by a master storyteller.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jul 24, 2017
Batfleck (1 more)
It's every comic fan's childhood dream
Sloppy editing (2 more)
Bad performances
Poor script
A Whole Mess Of Awesome
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay, if you are reading this I assume you have at least read a few other reviews of the movie, as it is all that anyone is talking about online at the minute, so what is left to say I hear you ask? Well first off I’ll give you some context, for the last three years I have been reading and collecting comics to an obsessive level and it is due to this movie. I have always been a superhero fan (especially Batman,) and I had read some comics in the past, but when this movie was announced at San Diego Comic-Con in 2013, (3 years ago!!) I was so hyped and I decided that I had to read the comic that this film was taking inspiration from. So I went to my local A1 Comics and bought The Dark Knight Returns, which underwhelmed me but that’s another story. Since then I have become a huge comic book fan and that is thanks to this movie. Seriously what was not to like here, it would have been so difficult to get this wrong, it’s Batman fighting Superman, how amazing is it that this actually happened? And yet they still managed to fuck it up…
Do you read? You will. And then realise how superior the comic that this is based on is to the actual movie itself, (and I’m not even a massive fan of the comic.)
I saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last week and while that movie wasn’t perfect, what made that a great movie is exactly what makes BvS a subpar movie. 10CL had a small team of people working on a restrictive budget, so every aspect of the movie was scrutinised and perfected to make up the end product and that attention to detail really paid off. BvS had a huge budget and a massive team of people working on it and I think that is what gives the movie it’s unfocused and sloppy feel. The script is a mess, there are clearly scenes cut, the editing is jarring, not all of the performances were up to scratch and while the imagery and visuals are incredible, the best way to describe this movie is all style and no substance. I like Zack Snyder, I love his Watchmen movie, I like 300 and I enjoyed Man of Steel, but I can’t help but feel that this is his fault. His decision to make years of comic book stories into one two and a half hour movie honestly baffles me. The events of this movie should have taken place over at least three movies, which I will discuss more in the spoiler section of this review, so stick around for that if you have seen the movie already. This movie really is all over the place and the pace and tone are random at best and if you have seen the trailers then you have essentially seen the movie. Let’s talk about the best part of the movie, which is quite easily Ben Affleck’s Batman and Jeremy Irons’ Alfred. Seeing the two characters and their chemistry are worth the ticket price of the film alone. This is probably the most faithful to the source material Batman that we have had on the big screen to date, except for one pretty major change. Batman in DoJ is pretty much Punisher in a cowl. During the Batmobile chase (which was really fucking awesome by the way,) he questionably kills some goons. I mean, some of them could have survived like, if they had Wolverine’s healing powers I guess? But then there is that badass warehouse scene that we see in the trailers and during that he near enough shoots some guys himself. If you can get over this and see this as an alternate version of Batman you should be able to appreciate Affleck’s performance though, which by the way is amazing, he knocks it out of the park. I would have liked some kind of reference to it, even a scene where he discusses breaking his code with Alfred, just a few lines would have made me get on board with this version of the character a lot quicker. Critics have been calling Henry Cavil’s Superman performance wooden, but I think that is too harsh, he is perfectly serviceable but he isn’t going to be praised for his memorable performance either. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman is badass, my only complaint is that she isn’t in the movie enough as Wonder Woman. Jesse Eisenberg is the stand out worst performance in the movie. It isn’t necessarily a bad performance, it just does not fit that character at all. He was truly miscast here, if they had cast him as Riddler in the Batman solo movie and he put in this performance I would be praising him like mad. Lex Luthor shouldn’t be crazy on a surface level, he should be a respectable businessman and an intellectual force to be reckoned with and he will go out of his way to ensure that this is what everyone sees him as, it is only ever the people closest to him that that he allows to see him crack. He certainly shouldn’t be making strange noises and gestures like someone with OCD or a mental issue. Also Doomsday is silly and is just shoehorned in at the end for the sake of giving the trinity and enemy to battle against.
Do you pee? You will. After sitting though near three hours of this garbage.
So to give my overall opinion before I get into spoilers, I will say that I enjoyed this movie better than Man of Steel, but only slightly and I dislike it for a lot of the same reasons. Just like Man of Steel there are parts of this movie that I adored and parts that I hated. Mixed emotions is an understatement. In my mind any movie above a 7 is a great movie and unfortunately I can’t call this a great movie. I fully believe that everyone should see this movie and form their own opinion, especially since reactions have been so mixed, but I felt that it simply didn’t live up to the hype that it set for itself and I feel like Zack Snyder may be doing more harm than good setting up the DCU. 6.5/10.
Do you see? You will. Or at least you better have seen it by now because I am about to spoil the shit out of the whole movie.
Like I said earlier, the events of the movie really should have been split across several movies and explored more rather than rushed through at a breakneck speed. We should have had a whole movie on Batman V Superman, the conflict ideals between them and the discussion of whether or not this world needs a Superman. Then we should have had a movie just based on the dawn of the justice league, with Batman and Superman eventually understanding each other and becoming friends and with way more scenes with Wonder Woman and a proper introduction to the other characters rather than the literal plot device USB stick we got in BvS. Then we should have had a few Justice League movies and once Superman was an established character within the universe, they should have killed him off then and did the Death and Return of Superman story, not in this one where Batman and Wonder Woman hardly know him and the public still don’t know whether he is good or bad. Also if Batman kills now, what reason is there for the Joker to still be alive? The whole point of their relationship is that Batman won’t kill Joker because of his code and Joker won’t kill Batman because he loves fighting him, but if Batman has no code and he has been Batman for years then he really should have killed Joker a long time ago. I did enjoy Batfleck and I am very much looking forward to his solo Batman movie, but BvS is rushed and sloppy. So I’ve said my piece, now let the fanboy hate commence.
Do you read? You will. And then realise how superior the comic that this is based on is to the actual movie itself, (and I’m not even a massive fan of the comic.)
I saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last week and while that movie wasn’t perfect, what made that a great movie is exactly what makes BvS a subpar movie. 10CL had a small team of people working on a restrictive budget, so every aspect of the movie was scrutinised and perfected to make up the end product and that attention to detail really paid off. BvS had a huge budget and a massive team of people working on it and I think that is what gives the movie it’s unfocused and sloppy feel. The script is a mess, there are clearly scenes cut, the editing is jarring, not all of the performances were up to scratch and while the imagery and visuals are incredible, the best way to describe this movie is all style and no substance. I like Zack Snyder, I love his Watchmen movie, I like 300 and I enjoyed Man of Steel, but I can’t help but feel that this is his fault. His decision to make years of comic book stories into one two and a half hour movie honestly baffles me. The events of this movie should have taken place over at least three movies, which I will discuss more in the spoiler section of this review, so stick around for that if you have seen the movie already. This movie really is all over the place and the pace and tone are random at best and if you have seen the trailers then you have essentially seen the movie. Let’s talk about the best part of the movie, which is quite easily Ben Affleck’s Batman and Jeremy Irons’ Alfred. Seeing the two characters and their chemistry are worth the ticket price of the film alone. This is probably the most faithful to the source material Batman that we have had on the big screen to date, except for one pretty major change. Batman in DoJ is pretty much Punisher in a cowl. During the Batmobile chase (which was really fucking awesome by the way,) he questionably kills some goons. I mean, some of them could have survived like, if they had Wolverine’s healing powers I guess? But then there is that badass warehouse scene that we see in the trailers and during that he near enough shoots some guys himself. If you can get over this and see this as an alternate version of Batman you should be able to appreciate Affleck’s performance though, which by the way is amazing, he knocks it out of the park. I would have liked some kind of reference to it, even a scene where he discusses breaking his code with Alfred, just a few lines would have made me get on board with this version of the character a lot quicker. Critics have been calling Henry Cavil’s Superman performance wooden, but I think that is too harsh, he is perfectly serviceable but he isn’t going to be praised for his memorable performance either. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman is badass, my only complaint is that she isn’t in the movie enough as Wonder Woman. Jesse Eisenberg is the stand out worst performance in the movie. It isn’t necessarily a bad performance, it just does not fit that character at all. He was truly miscast here, if they had cast him as Riddler in the Batman solo movie and he put in this performance I would be praising him like mad. Lex Luthor shouldn’t be crazy on a surface level, he should be a respectable businessman and an intellectual force to be reckoned with and he will go out of his way to ensure that this is what everyone sees him as, it is only ever the people closest to him that that he allows to see him crack. He certainly shouldn’t be making strange noises and gestures like someone with OCD or a mental issue. Also Doomsday is silly and is just shoehorned in at the end for the sake of giving the trinity and enemy to battle against.
Do you pee? You will. After sitting though near three hours of this garbage.
So to give my overall opinion before I get into spoilers, I will say that I enjoyed this movie better than Man of Steel, but only slightly and I dislike it for a lot of the same reasons. Just like Man of Steel there are parts of this movie that I adored and parts that I hated. Mixed emotions is an understatement. In my mind any movie above a 7 is a great movie and unfortunately I can’t call this a great movie. I fully believe that everyone should see this movie and form their own opinion, especially since reactions have been so mixed, but I felt that it simply didn’t live up to the hype that it set for itself and I feel like Zack Snyder may be doing more harm than good setting up the DCU. 6.5/10.
Do you see? You will. Or at least you better have seen it by now because I am about to spoil the shit out of the whole movie.
Like I said earlier, the events of the movie really should have been split across several movies and explored more rather than rushed through at a breakneck speed. We should have had a whole movie on Batman V Superman, the conflict ideals between them and the discussion of whether or not this world needs a Superman. Then we should have had a movie just based on the dawn of the justice league, with Batman and Superman eventually understanding each other and becoming friends and with way more scenes with Wonder Woman and a proper introduction to the other characters rather than the literal plot device USB stick we got in BvS. Then we should have had a few Justice League movies and once Superman was an established character within the universe, they should have killed him off then and did the Death and Return of Superman story, not in this one where Batman and Wonder Woman hardly know him and the public still don’t know whether he is good or bad. Also if Batman kills now, what reason is there for the Joker to still be alive? The whole point of their relationship is that Batman won’t kill Joker because of his code and Joker won’t kill Batman because he loves fighting him, but if Batman has no code and he has been Batman for years then he really should have killed Joker a long time ago. I did enjoy Batfleck and I am very much looking forward to his solo Batman movie, but BvS is rushed and sloppy. So I’ve said my piece, now let the fanboy hate commence.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated American Psycho in Books
Mar 15, 2018
http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/american-psycho-by-bret-easton-ellis
<b><i>...there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I am simply not there.</b></i>
I have no idea how to verbalise the fact that this has become a new favourite book of mine, because I absolutely <i>love</i> it, but I dont want people to think Im a maniac I wasnt expecting to not love this, I mean the film is one of my favourites, so I was really looking forward to giving this a read, but I didnt expect to love it as much as I do! I feel all kinds of wrong being so amazed by this book but I cant help it. Its funny, its dark, its brutal, its shocking and its eye opening.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/KYNywoibU1PQ4/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="210" alt="leo dicaprio shrug"/>
So, Patrick Bateman, our one and only POV of this story. Batemen is a young, middle class, good looking, sophisticated and intelligent stockbroker. Hes charming and arrogant, but hes also an ax and knife and nail gun wielding mad man.
<img src="http://media0.giphy.com/media/YfdumeFM14CGc/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="213" alt="americanppsychogif"/>
But hes also a total <b>goofy dork!</b> <i><b>Im clam, I mean calm, I say, breathing in hard, trying to smile</b></i> Bateman cant get a grip on himself <i>at all.</i> Not only does he have moments where hes running around Manhattan screaming like a banshee, sweating profusely, and having, what can only be described as, a mental breakdown, but hes also just a mess at all times. Hes constantly getting himself in a tizz, experiencing panic attacks all over the place. I mean he started talking about the ozone layer and then instantly told a couple of knock knock jokes, thats not smooth Bateman. This constant goofiness of Bateman is what makes this book so funny for me. Ellis is excellent at adding this clumsy human characteristic to an otherwise robotic man.
Bateman is troubled, in more ways than one. Not only is he a serial killer but hes also an outsider and he knows it. <b><i>Because, I say, staring directly at her, I want to fit.... in.</b></i> This is why hes always trying so hard to impress people, and why hes obsessed with being the best.
Normally I hate when there are long paragraphs in books that simply list things about what a person is doing or wearing, for example in Maestra I couldnt care less, but this excessive listing of things, unimportant materialist things, is such an important element of this book. These tiresome, obsessive lists give us such a clear insight, right from the start of the novel, into the incredibly paranoid, jealous and demented mind of Bateman. When we near the end of the novel Ellis does something absolutely mind blowing; he changes to third person. This sudden change on narrative has such a strong impact on the reader and is the perfect, <i>perfect</i> way of representing Patricks detachment to life.
Please, please, please do not read this book if youre faint hearted or youve gone through some terrible things in your life. I dont think this book needs specific trigger warnings, but in case you havent already guessed it, this book includes some very, <i>very</i> graphic and grotesque descriptions of torture, murder and rape. I think its quite hard to shock me, but this book made me wince and gasp quite often. I even had to put the book down briefly after reading some of the descriptions, breathe, and then get back to reading. It can be really tough on your imagination, thats for sure. <b>The rat scene </b> <spoiler>I mean I thought the scene with Bethany was bad but I had a whole other thing coming! It seriously worries me how well Ellis can describe this brutal torture. I could actually feel the bile rising in my throat when I was reading about the things Bateman did to Tiffany.</spoiler>
<img src="http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Jim-From-Office-Shiver.gif"; width="300" height="169" alt="jim from office shudder"/>
Im not going to go in depth on the claim that this is a misogynistic book, all you need to know is that I dont agree with that statement in the slightest. If you want to read some more on why that notion is ridiculous please look at <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/109385399?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">karens review.</a>
This book is definitely a new favourite of mine and I can feel it becoming one of those books I read over and over again. Im so happy I finally sat down and read this, I dont regret a moment of it, plus I got it for only £2.99. Thank you Ellis for this wonderful piece of literature, I hope your other novels brings me the same joy as this did.
<i>P.S. Isnt it funny how Donald Trump is mentioned in this book over and over and over because Trump is the greatest example of everything this book represents.</i>
<b><i>...there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I am simply not there.</b></i>
I have no idea how to verbalise the fact that this has become a new favourite book of mine, because I absolutely <i>love</i> it, but I dont want people to think Im a maniac I wasnt expecting to not love this, I mean the film is one of my favourites, so I was really looking forward to giving this a read, but I didnt expect to love it as much as I do! I feel all kinds of wrong being so amazed by this book but I cant help it. Its funny, its dark, its brutal, its shocking and its eye opening.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/KYNywoibU1PQ4/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="210" alt="leo dicaprio shrug"/>
So, Patrick Bateman, our one and only POV of this story. Batemen is a young, middle class, good looking, sophisticated and intelligent stockbroker. Hes charming and arrogant, but hes also an ax and knife and nail gun wielding mad man.
<img src="http://media0.giphy.com/media/YfdumeFM14CGc/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="213" alt="americanppsychogif"/>
But hes also a total <b>goofy dork!</b> <i><b>Im clam, I mean calm, I say, breathing in hard, trying to smile</b></i> Bateman cant get a grip on himself <i>at all.</i> Not only does he have moments where hes running around Manhattan screaming like a banshee, sweating profusely, and having, what can only be described as, a mental breakdown, but hes also just a mess at all times. Hes constantly getting himself in a tizz, experiencing panic attacks all over the place. I mean he started talking about the ozone layer and then instantly told a couple of knock knock jokes, thats not smooth Bateman. This constant goofiness of Bateman is what makes this book so funny for me. Ellis is excellent at adding this clumsy human characteristic to an otherwise robotic man.
Bateman is troubled, in more ways than one. Not only is he a serial killer but hes also an outsider and he knows it. <b><i>Because, I say, staring directly at her, I want to fit.... in.</b></i> This is why hes always trying so hard to impress people, and why hes obsessed with being the best.
Normally I hate when there are long paragraphs in books that simply list things about what a person is doing or wearing, for example in Maestra I couldnt care less, but this excessive listing of things, unimportant materialist things, is such an important element of this book. These tiresome, obsessive lists give us such a clear insight, right from the start of the novel, into the incredibly paranoid, jealous and demented mind of Bateman. When we near the end of the novel Ellis does something absolutely mind blowing; he changes to third person. This sudden change on narrative has such a strong impact on the reader and is the perfect, <i>perfect</i> way of representing Patricks detachment to life.
Please, please, please do not read this book if youre faint hearted or youve gone through some terrible things in your life. I dont think this book needs specific trigger warnings, but in case you havent already guessed it, this book includes some very, <i>very</i> graphic and grotesque descriptions of torture, murder and rape. I think its quite hard to shock me, but this book made me wince and gasp quite often. I even had to put the book down briefly after reading some of the descriptions, breathe, and then get back to reading. It can be really tough on your imagination, thats for sure. <b>The rat scene </b> <spoiler>I mean I thought the scene with Bethany was bad but I had a whole other thing coming! It seriously worries me how well Ellis can describe this brutal torture. I could actually feel the bile rising in my throat when I was reading about the things Bateman did to Tiffany.</spoiler>
<img src="http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Jim-From-Office-Shiver.gif"; width="300" height="169" alt="jim from office shudder"/>
Im not going to go in depth on the claim that this is a misogynistic book, all you need to know is that I dont agree with that statement in the slightest. If you want to read some more on why that notion is ridiculous please look at <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/109385399?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">karens review.</a>
This book is definitely a new favourite of mine and I can feel it becoming one of those books I read over and over again. Im so happy I finally sat down and read this, I dont regret a moment of it, plus I got it for only £2.99. Thank you Ellis for this wonderful piece of literature, I hope your other novels brings me the same joy as this did.
<i>P.S. Isnt it funny how Donald Trump is mentioned in this book over and over and over because Trump is the greatest example of everything this book represents.</i>
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Taken (Celestial Blues, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Even though I'm not especially fond of angels, I decided to try out this new series based on my previous experiences with Vicki Pettersson's work. Sadly, after an intriguing first chapter, any enjoyment I may have expected never came knocking (guess it was too busy knockin' on heaven's door).
Meet one of the two main characters, rockabilly girl Katherine "Kit" Craig. She's an eternally optimistic and peppy reporter whose best friend and co-worker, Nicole, was just murdered while following a lead. Our other MC is a haunted Centurion angel named Griffin Shaw who ushers the newly murdered into the afterlife, otherwise known as the Everlast, while bemoaning the murders of both himself and his wife Evie back in 1960. After making a mistake concerning Nicole, he's been sent back to earth as a human with some angelic senses still intact. Kit and Grif soon meet up and begin investigating the circumstances around Nicole's death, whilst Griffin seeks out any details involving his own.
Problem Number One:
The Cardboard Characters
Character development is supposed to unfold over the course of a book, in this case it actually appeared to deteriorate as the book went on. Kit never developed into anything but one of those annoyingly chipper people you just want to hit with a sledgehammer, while Grif started promisingly enough but then stagnated. They were both very shallow characterizations, and on top of that, I never understood Kit's actions or reactions to just about anything. I never felt her sadness about her best friend's death, whom she rarely gave a passing thought, believed she was smart (by the end, I thought her a dolt), or seem in any way human with nary a rational thought in her head. About mid-way through the book, Grif tells her he's an angel after they kiss, so what does she do? Does she a) run away screaming, b) think he's a few feathers short of a goose and tell him to get hell out of her house and life, or c) have a calm Q&A session followed by giving him a whatfor that consists of "I won't kiss you again" and "you're watching me walk out that door (in her own house) because you can't handle any emotion blah, blah, blah by pretending you're an angel" and then proceed to attend a charity event wherein she acts and converses normally, like nothing happened? If you picked "c" *ding ding ding*, you're a winner! Because as we all know, any sensible guy will pull out the "I'm an angel" trick and expect a woman to believe him. *rolls eyes* Never was it ever crystal clear if Kit thought Grif was either crazy or a liar. It was all a bit hazy, but what can you expect from someone we're never allowed to know? All we discern is she dresses and lives (somewhat) rockabilly, but it's all a veneer to her hollowness inside, which led me to dub her Rockabilly Barbie.
<img src="http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj183/piscesrain/reviews/RockabillyBarbie.jpg">;
Because that's all she is and nothing more. The only character that I found a little more well-rounded was the secondary character Bridget Moore and the two Centurions introduced close to the end. Everyone else was either forgettably two-dimensional or they were a caricature, a la Caleb Chambers and Paul Raggio.
Problem Number Two:
The Relationship(s)
I'm expected to believe in a possible relationship between Grif and Rockabilly Barbie, err I mean Kit, but there's not much there to believe in. Like the characters, it was shallow with the same descriptions reiterated over and over again. Basically it's a case of telling instead of showing. I felt no love, maybe some attraction, but that's all she wrote. Likewise I never bought that Kit and Paul could ever have gotten far enough to be married, they were just too different. Most people don't do a 180 after they get married, the seed of who Paul really was deep down inside would have already been there and if Kit was even a fraction astute, she should have caught that. All this served was to be a plot point in the book.
Problem Number Three:
The Plot(s)
The main plot involving Nicole's death and Chambers had a "been there, done that" quality to it. The plot didn't shock me or seem like anything new, I've come across the same before or at least plots that were very close, and it wasn't even told in a fresh way. So I wasn't as affected by anything in the book as I probably should have been, partially due to the indifference I felt and the fact that I figured out everything long before the author dropped, what I guess she thought, were informational bombshells.
The book had three major plotlines: Grif and Evie's deaths, Nicole's death/prostitution ring, and Grif and the Pure Anas' philosophical moments. They weren't juggled well at all. Ms. Pettersson should have picked only one and paid more attention to developing that specific plot and the characters. The scenes with Anas (or Anne) especially didn't mesh with the other stories and felt as if the author was overreaching the boundaries set up by the book. One scene in particular was extremely bizarre and pointless to the book as a whole.
Where was the noir? I've seen enough film noirs to know it ain't here.
Problem Number Four:
The Ending
What happened at the end is what I'd expect in a book that's exclusively romance and not in a mystery/urban fantasy hybrid, which made the rushed ending seem even more ridiculous and sappy. It was incredibly unbelievable to the story and didn't seem to set up the next book in any way. Also, one of the plotlines was all but left dangling with no foreshadowing or anything. Poor, poor, poor execution. Don't expound on a storyline if you're not going to finish it up or at least leave it dangling in a way that makes the reader want to come back. All that boring set-up for a completely stupid and cheesy ending. I expected rainbows and unicorns to pop out at any moment.
Overall the book felt more like a rough copy than a finished one and definitely could have used a few more goings over. Several descriptions were rushed and chaotic or simply poorly done so that I was scrambling to picture what was going on. The book is almost 400 pages and it is simply too long. With so many storylines, I'm not sure how they managed to both crawl and have very little action at the same time. I was going to give this two stars because I didn't hate the book, that would imply that it elicited any feelings what-so-ever, but the truth of the matter is that there isn't one thing I really liked about the book either. The only way I'd read a sequel to the bafflingly-named Celestial Blues series is if it featured different leads like the aforementioned Centurions, and even then I'd cautiously dip my toes into the book.
Originally reviewed: June 29
Received: Amazon Vine
Meet one of the two main characters, rockabilly girl Katherine "Kit" Craig. She's an eternally optimistic and peppy reporter whose best friend and co-worker, Nicole, was just murdered while following a lead. Our other MC is a haunted Centurion angel named Griffin Shaw who ushers the newly murdered into the afterlife, otherwise known as the Everlast, while bemoaning the murders of both himself and his wife Evie back in 1960. After making a mistake concerning Nicole, he's been sent back to earth as a human with some angelic senses still intact. Kit and Grif soon meet up and begin investigating the circumstances around Nicole's death, whilst Griffin seeks out any details involving his own.
Problem Number One:
The Cardboard Characters
Character development is supposed to unfold over the course of a book, in this case it actually appeared to deteriorate as the book went on. Kit never developed into anything but one of those annoyingly chipper people you just want to hit with a sledgehammer, while Grif started promisingly enough but then stagnated. They were both very shallow characterizations, and on top of that, I never understood Kit's actions or reactions to just about anything. I never felt her sadness about her best friend's death, whom she rarely gave a passing thought, believed she was smart (by the end, I thought her a dolt), or seem in any way human with nary a rational thought in her head. About mid-way through the book, Grif tells her he's an angel after they kiss, so what does she do? Does she a) run away screaming, b) think he's a few feathers short of a goose and tell him to get hell out of her house and life, or c) have a calm Q&A session followed by giving him a whatfor that consists of "I won't kiss you again" and "you're watching me walk out that door (in her own house) because you can't handle any emotion blah, blah, blah by pretending you're an angel" and then proceed to attend a charity event wherein she acts and converses normally, like nothing happened? If you picked "c" *ding ding ding*, you're a winner! Because as we all know, any sensible guy will pull out the "I'm an angel" trick and expect a woman to believe him. *rolls eyes* Never was it ever crystal clear if Kit thought Grif was either crazy or a liar. It was all a bit hazy, but what can you expect from someone we're never allowed to know? All we discern is she dresses and lives (somewhat) rockabilly, but it's all a veneer to her hollowness inside, which led me to dub her Rockabilly Barbie.
<img src="http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj183/piscesrain/reviews/RockabillyBarbie.jpg">;
Because that's all she is and nothing more. The only character that I found a little more well-rounded was the secondary character Bridget Moore and the two Centurions introduced close to the end. Everyone else was either forgettably two-dimensional or they were a caricature, a la Caleb Chambers and Paul Raggio.
Problem Number Two:
The Relationship(s)
I'm expected to believe in a possible relationship between Grif and Rockabilly Barbie, err I mean Kit, but there's not much there to believe in. Like the characters, it was shallow with the same descriptions reiterated over and over again. Basically it's a case of telling instead of showing. I felt no love, maybe some attraction, but that's all she wrote. Likewise I never bought that Kit and Paul could ever have gotten far enough to be married, they were just too different. Most people don't do a 180 after they get married, the seed of who Paul really was deep down inside would have already been there and if Kit was even a fraction astute, she should have caught that. All this served was to be a plot point in the book.
Problem Number Three:
The Plot(s)
The main plot involving Nicole's death and Chambers had a "been there, done that" quality to it. The plot didn't shock me or seem like anything new, I've come across the same before or at least plots that were very close, and it wasn't even told in a fresh way. So I wasn't as affected by anything in the book as I probably should have been, partially due to the indifference I felt and the fact that I figured out everything long before the author dropped, what I guess she thought, were informational bombshells.
The book had three major plotlines: Grif and Evie's deaths, Nicole's death/prostitution ring, and Grif and the Pure Anas' philosophical moments. They weren't juggled well at all. Ms. Pettersson should have picked only one and paid more attention to developing that specific plot and the characters. The scenes with Anas (or Anne) especially didn't mesh with the other stories and felt as if the author was overreaching the boundaries set up by the book. One scene in particular was extremely bizarre and pointless to the book as a whole.
Where was the noir? I've seen enough film noirs to know it ain't here.
Problem Number Four:
The Ending
What happened at the end is what I'd expect in a book that's exclusively romance and not in a mystery/urban fantasy hybrid, which made the rushed ending seem even more ridiculous and sappy. It was incredibly unbelievable to the story and didn't seem to set up the next book in any way. Also, one of the plotlines was all but left dangling with no foreshadowing or anything. Poor, poor, poor execution. Don't expound on a storyline if you're not going to finish it up or at least leave it dangling in a way that makes the reader want to come back. All that boring set-up for a completely stupid and cheesy ending. I expected rainbows and unicorns to pop out at any moment.
Overall the book felt more like a rough copy than a finished one and definitely could have used a few more goings over. Several descriptions were rushed and chaotic or simply poorly done so that I was scrambling to picture what was going on. The book is almost 400 pages and it is simply too long. With so many storylines, I'm not sure how they managed to both crawl and have very little action at the same time. I was going to give this two stars because I didn't hate the book, that would imply that it elicited any feelings what-so-ever, but the truth of the matter is that there isn't one thing I really liked about the book either. The only way I'd read a sequel to the bafflingly-named Celestial Blues series is if it featured different leads like the aforementioned Centurions, and even then I'd cautiously dip my toes into the book.
Originally reviewed: June 29
Received: Amazon Vine
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Lost Ruins of Arnak in Tabletop Games
Feb 7, 2021
If you are reading this review, chances are you have heard something about the board game “Lost Ruins of Arnak.” If not, continue forward, as there’s a lot to discover in this jungle adventure experience. “Lost Ruins of Arnak” for those that have not already been exposed to the exciting hype leading up to its release date, is a board game that delves deep into the jungle, not unlike a 1980’s Indiana Jones film. It has treasure, hidden idols, lost artifacts, guardians of the jungle, and exploration in the form of a very large game board. The box boasts of multiple gaming mechanisms that all work in tandem for one epic journey. From deckbuilding, exploration, worker placement, to resource management this game throws the entire kitchen at the players. Whether that is a positive or negative is up to each player. I share my thoughts at the very bottom if you want to skip past the gameplay portion of the review.
Players, or “archaeologists” as the game coins them, will have only 5 rounds to explore as much of the board as possible, which includes a hidden temple as well as the jungle proper. At the end of the 5 rounds, players will add up all victory points they have obtained from the temple, any treasure they have left, points on any cards collected, and guardians they have overcome.
“Lost Ruins of Arnak” takes place on, well… Arnak. It’s a fictional jungle that is teeming with wild animals and guardians which keep watch over various treasures all over the expansive island, from here forward referred to as the giant game board. These guardians appear when you explore a new jungle tile for the first time. They attack only if you stay in the location longer than a turn OR if you return to the location on a subsequent turn. If you eliminate a guardian, they provide a couple victory points towards your overall total at the end of the game, and a slight bonus when collecting artifacts from other locations later. Being attacked by a guardian isn’t the end of the world, but can have detrimental effects on your personal deck of cards if you fail to overcome a guardian too many times.
While in the jungle, you may place a single meeple, or “archaeologist” on your turn to discover a new area, or visit a previously discovered one. These new areas contain a guardian and some sort of gold amount or trinket (idols, artifacts, or jewels). These items can be used to push your token further through the hidden temple (see below) OR to purchase cards to improve your play deck going forward. While navigating this mysterious jungle can seem exciting at first glance, you have to be careful not to let your gold fever take over, as it may leave you with minimal points by not using some worker placement to explore the mysterious temple ruins further.
While the jungle takes up a majority of the board, there is a temple which players navigate through simultaneously on the right hand side of the giant board. While it isn’t as visually appealing as the jungle portion of the board, it serves by far the highest purpose by scoring victory points. As your token travels through this temple, more and more treasure (victory points) await. It is not suggested in the rulebook, but should be noted that failing to spend ample treasure to work your way through the temple is almost a sure-fire means of not having a chance to win the game. The mechanic of exploring the temple is unique, but can be costly in terms of managing your resources properly. In my opinion, this takes away from the luster of traversing through a hidden temple and finding as much fat loots as possible. Rather, it feels like another board game I own, where you are furiously chucking dice just trying to get through with no time to look around.
The final mechanic of the game, which, as I read reviews myself prior to purchase, thought would be more prominent, is the deck building mechanic. You are provided a few cards at the start, which is similar to most any deckbuilding game. These basic cards are your first few resources to use for traveling around the board OR for their monetary value in either gold or scrolls. Using the cards for travel allow you to explore different levels of the jungle on the game board. The lower areas of the board require less travel points, while the more lucrative spaces higher up in the jungle require more. To get more travel points, you will need better cards from the decks provided. By using your gold, also an aspect of each card, you may purchase stronger cards from the supply. So, there is a balance you must find between using your cards for travel or for purchases each turn. This can be very limiting with only having the 5 rounds in which to play.
My final thoughts: I am a total sucker for pretty much anything that says the words “deck building” on them, and this game was no exception. I went into this game thinking there was going to be this new way of using a deck building mechanic to also explore a really well crafted game board. I could not have been more wrong. The deck building aspect got so lost in the other mechanics, that I felt like I rarely had the opportunity to actually build my deck. After 3-4 plays of this game, with varying player counts from 2-4, I always ended up with a deck no bigger than about 15-20 cards. When I think deck build, I think of those powerhouses like Marvel Legendary, Ascension, or Star Realms where you are really transforming your deck into a large deck by the end. On top of that, most highly regarded deck builders require you to strategize somewhat in which cards that you buy to compliment your current deck further. Arnak completely leaves both of these elements out. Most times I found myself only able to purchase 1 card in the supply due to lack of resources that I did not have any choice in how that card would compliment my deck or not. It was merely just collecting a card to try and give my deck any sort of a distinct advantage going forward. Now, don’t get me wrong, like the game board, the artwork on the cards is stunning. By far this saves the poor mechanism of the actual cards themselves.
To me, the amount of mechanisms in the game is what gets in its own way. Its that classic, everything but the kitchen sink expression. The exploration gets in the way of the deck-building, which gets in the way of the worker placement, which gets in the way of the resource management. When I found myself wanting to build my deck, it was more crucial that I move up the temple one step. When I wanted to move up the temple, I was missing a certain idol, so I had to resort to wasting cards for gold to purchase a card for my deck that I really didn’t want. So while I think the premise is really thrilling for what this game could have been, in my opinion it just fell short. I left me wanting to explore the upper part of the jungle I never got to. I left me wanting to look at more of the artwork on the cards I never was able to purchase. In the end, I made it to the top of the temple. I couldn’t wait to enjoy my heaping pile of fat loots that awaited my studded archaeologist. However, once I turned over the treasure token, I only acquired another measly 12 victory points. This feeling left me wanting more from this game that was so hyped for its gameplay. I no longer felt like Indiana Jones, and more like I was in a bad B movie hoping for a better acting career.
Players, or “archaeologists” as the game coins them, will have only 5 rounds to explore as much of the board as possible, which includes a hidden temple as well as the jungle proper. At the end of the 5 rounds, players will add up all victory points they have obtained from the temple, any treasure they have left, points on any cards collected, and guardians they have overcome.
“Lost Ruins of Arnak” takes place on, well… Arnak. It’s a fictional jungle that is teeming with wild animals and guardians which keep watch over various treasures all over the expansive island, from here forward referred to as the giant game board. These guardians appear when you explore a new jungle tile for the first time. They attack only if you stay in the location longer than a turn OR if you return to the location on a subsequent turn. If you eliminate a guardian, they provide a couple victory points towards your overall total at the end of the game, and a slight bonus when collecting artifacts from other locations later. Being attacked by a guardian isn’t the end of the world, but can have detrimental effects on your personal deck of cards if you fail to overcome a guardian too many times.
While in the jungle, you may place a single meeple, or “archaeologist” on your turn to discover a new area, or visit a previously discovered one. These new areas contain a guardian and some sort of gold amount or trinket (idols, artifacts, or jewels). These items can be used to push your token further through the hidden temple (see below) OR to purchase cards to improve your play deck going forward. While navigating this mysterious jungle can seem exciting at first glance, you have to be careful not to let your gold fever take over, as it may leave you with minimal points by not using some worker placement to explore the mysterious temple ruins further.
While the jungle takes up a majority of the board, there is a temple which players navigate through simultaneously on the right hand side of the giant board. While it isn’t as visually appealing as the jungle portion of the board, it serves by far the highest purpose by scoring victory points. As your token travels through this temple, more and more treasure (victory points) await. It is not suggested in the rulebook, but should be noted that failing to spend ample treasure to work your way through the temple is almost a sure-fire means of not having a chance to win the game. The mechanic of exploring the temple is unique, but can be costly in terms of managing your resources properly. In my opinion, this takes away from the luster of traversing through a hidden temple and finding as much fat loots as possible. Rather, it feels like another board game I own, where you are furiously chucking dice just trying to get through with no time to look around.
The final mechanic of the game, which, as I read reviews myself prior to purchase, thought would be more prominent, is the deck building mechanic. You are provided a few cards at the start, which is similar to most any deckbuilding game. These basic cards are your first few resources to use for traveling around the board OR for their monetary value in either gold or scrolls. Using the cards for travel allow you to explore different levels of the jungle on the game board. The lower areas of the board require less travel points, while the more lucrative spaces higher up in the jungle require more. To get more travel points, you will need better cards from the decks provided. By using your gold, also an aspect of each card, you may purchase stronger cards from the supply. So, there is a balance you must find between using your cards for travel or for purchases each turn. This can be very limiting with only having the 5 rounds in which to play.
My final thoughts: I am a total sucker for pretty much anything that says the words “deck building” on them, and this game was no exception. I went into this game thinking there was going to be this new way of using a deck building mechanic to also explore a really well crafted game board. I could not have been more wrong. The deck building aspect got so lost in the other mechanics, that I felt like I rarely had the opportunity to actually build my deck. After 3-4 plays of this game, with varying player counts from 2-4, I always ended up with a deck no bigger than about 15-20 cards. When I think deck build, I think of those powerhouses like Marvel Legendary, Ascension, or Star Realms where you are really transforming your deck into a large deck by the end. On top of that, most highly regarded deck builders require you to strategize somewhat in which cards that you buy to compliment your current deck further. Arnak completely leaves both of these elements out. Most times I found myself only able to purchase 1 card in the supply due to lack of resources that I did not have any choice in how that card would compliment my deck or not. It was merely just collecting a card to try and give my deck any sort of a distinct advantage going forward. Now, don’t get me wrong, like the game board, the artwork on the cards is stunning. By far this saves the poor mechanism of the actual cards themselves.
To me, the amount of mechanisms in the game is what gets in its own way. Its that classic, everything but the kitchen sink expression. The exploration gets in the way of the deck-building, which gets in the way of the worker placement, which gets in the way of the resource management. When I found myself wanting to build my deck, it was more crucial that I move up the temple one step. When I wanted to move up the temple, I was missing a certain idol, so I had to resort to wasting cards for gold to purchase a card for my deck that I really didn’t want. So while I think the premise is really thrilling for what this game could have been, in my opinion it just fell short. I left me wanting to explore the upper part of the jungle I never got to. I left me wanting to look at more of the artwork on the cards I never was able to purchase. In the end, I made it to the top of the temple. I couldn’t wait to enjoy my heaping pile of fat loots that awaited my studded archaeologist. However, once I turned over the treasure token, I only acquired another measly 12 victory points. This feeling left me wanting more from this game that was so hyped for its gameplay. I no longer felt like Indiana Jones, and more like I was in a bad B movie hoping for a better acting career.
