Search
SW
Salvage Work: U.S. and Caribbean Literatures Amid the Debris of Legal Personhood
Book
Salvage Work examines contemporary literary responses to the law's construction of personhood in the...
Counting the Ways
Book
Grace Barnes, living in her subterranean one-room flat at the nether end of Earl's Court, feels out...
Rent Unmasked: How to Save the Global Economy and Build a Sustainable Future
Book
Rent Unmasked explores the new economic paradigm that policy-makers need to solve global problems in...
ClareR (6256 KP) rated One Year Later in Books
Aug 18, 2019
One Year Later by Sanjida Kay is a psychological thriller that had my heart in my mouth from the first page. It starts with an emotive subject: the death of a child - 3 year old Ruby. The family becomes fractured, no one deals well with Ruby’s death, and so Nick, her uncle, convinces his sister and her husband that it would be a good idea for the whole family to celebrate or mark the anniversary of Ruby’s death abroad and away from the bad memories. So they all go to a small island off the coast of Italy. But instead of this being the healing holiday that everyone needs and hopes for, secrets are revealed and it looks as though fractures within the family will become even worse.
I really think that Sanjida Kay has the voices of the characters just right: the mother who is barely able to function and hides alcohol around the house, just to get by and to be able to function for her two living children; the father who distances himself from everyone; the uncle who constantly thinks about his dead niece, and blames himself even though he couldn’t possibly be to blame; the sister who seems completely wrapped up in her own world of TV and her looks; and the grandfather who is responsible for the death of his granddaughter, but can’t remember what happened.
It’s such an emotional subject and so well written. I found myself very involved with these characters, and I couldn’t help but empathise with them. I was never quite sure if the person they all thought was responsible for Ruby’s death actually was, but I have to admit that I changed my mind a few times. The twist revealing the actual culprit came as a total shock and surprise.
A really very impressive book, in my opinion, and I’ll be telling everyone to read it!
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for my copy to read and review.
I really think that Sanjida Kay has the voices of the characters just right: the mother who is barely able to function and hides alcohol around the house, just to get by and to be able to function for her two living children; the father who distances himself from everyone; the uncle who constantly thinks about his dead niece, and blames himself even though he couldn’t possibly be to blame; the sister who seems completely wrapped up in her own world of TV and her looks; and the grandfather who is responsible for the death of his granddaughter, but can’t remember what happened.
It’s such an emotional subject and so well written. I found myself very involved with these characters, and I couldn’t help but empathise with them. I was never quite sure if the person they all thought was responsible for Ruby’s death actually was, but I have to admit that I changed my mind a few times. The twist revealing the actual culprit came as a total shock and surprise.
A really very impressive book, in my opinion, and I’ll be telling everyone to read it!
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for my copy to read and review.
Merissa (14182 KP) rated Moon Justice (Aurelia Fridell #2) in Books
Apr 11, 2023
This story picks up where Fractured Moon finished. Ceithin and Aurelia travel to Alaska for some much-needed time alone, where Aurelia can spend time learning about her wolf. Things are never that easy though and their time in Alaska is interrupted in the form of a Kodiak shapeshifter. They are also pressed to return home where they find that things have changed in their absence, and not always for the better.
There is a lot that goes on in this book and it will keep your interest as you turn the pages. However, I will say that there were a couple of things that 'niggled' at me once I had finished it. Firstly, the whole 'thing' in Alaska - I'm really hoping that it will lead to a more developed story with Garrett and Mars as I felt that it ended rather abruptly and without actually going anywhere. Then there was the whole 'madman raising an army' situation. It seemed like a lot of hot air about nothing. Now, don't get me wrong. The storyline itself was fast-paced and well-written. It's just that I felt parts of it could have been 'more', bigger somehow. It felt like a big build-up, with a good action scene before and then... poof, it was all over.
Don't get me wrong though, this story isn't rushed and does come to a satisfactory close. On the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed it which is why it gets four stars. I felt the story ended nicely for Ceithin and Aurelia and would love to know more about this family and their friends, hopefully starting with Garrett and Mars as they go to Alaska.
Recommended for fans of the paranormal and shapeshifters.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
August 5, 2016
There is a lot that goes on in this book and it will keep your interest as you turn the pages. However, I will say that there were a couple of things that 'niggled' at me once I had finished it. Firstly, the whole 'thing' in Alaska - I'm really hoping that it will lead to a more developed story with Garrett and Mars as I felt that it ended rather abruptly and without actually going anywhere. Then there was the whole 'madman raising an army' situation. It seemed like a lot of hot air about nothing. Now, don't get me wrong. The storyline itself was fast-paced and well-written. It's just that I felt parts of it could have been 'more', bigger somehow. It felt like a big build-up, with a good action scene before and then... poof, it was all over.
Don't get me wrong though, this story isn't rushed and does come to a satisfactory close. On the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed it which is why it gets four stars. I felt the story ended nicely for Ceithin and Aurelia and would love to know more about this family and their friends, hopefully starting with Garrett and Mars as they go to Alaska.
Recommended for fans of the paranormal and shapeshifters.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
August 5, 2016
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Year One (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
I had no idea what to expect with “Year One”. Would it be another flop like “Nacho Libre”? How does Michael Cera fit into this kind of film? Could this be unexpected comedy gold reminiscent of the 1981 Mel Brook’s classic “History of the World: Part I”?
“Year One” follows the journey of two cavemen, Zed (Jack Black) and Oh (Michael Cera), through a comedic adaptation of early mankind. Zed and Oh are lowly members of their tribe rebuffed by the women they desire. Desperate to be something more Zed consumes the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge and is immediately out casted from his tribe. Oh joins Zed and the two begin a trip encountering fractured Biblical stories and characters.
Eventually our heroes are led into the lecherous city of Sodom, where they find the tribe and their ladyloves have been taken as slaves. As the two attempt to free the women from a life of slavery eccentric vaguely plotted comedy ensues.
The cast, filled with the usual silly suspects, includes Paul Rudd as Abel, Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Issac, and Vinnie Jones as Sargon. But do not expect their normal brand of comedy because it has been replaced with visually graphic potty humor.
The sets and costumes are well created but near impossible to notice when there is a pile of sheep innards being interpreted by Oliver Platt, who plays the High Priest. The few interesting one-liners fail to save “Year One” from an aura similar to “Austin Powers in Goldmember“.
Why after great films like “School of Rock” and “Be Kind Rewind” is Jack Black purposely trying to end his career? Moreover, why has he decided to take Michael Cera with him? As for Michael Cera this awful sort of humor is not going to lead him out of the valley of “Juno” fandom.
The flick is better than “Nacho Libre”, but it is not comedy gold. If you enjoy simple potty humor you should definitely see the film, but if not plan to borrow the DVD from a friend only to be happy you did not purchase it.
“Year One” follows the journey of two cavemen, Zed (Jack Black) and Oh (Michael Cera), through a comedic adaptation of early mankind. Zed and Oh are lowly members of their tribe rebuffed by the women they desire. Desperate to be something more Zed consumes the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge and is immediately out casted from his tribe. Oh joins Zed and the two begin a trip encountering fractured Biblical stories and characters.
Eventually our heroes are led into the lecherous city of Sodom, where they find the tribe and their ladyloves have been taken as slaves. As the two attempt to free the women from a life of slavery eccentric vaguely plotted comedy ensues.
The cast, filled with the usual silly suspects, includes Paul Rudd as Abel, Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Issac, and Vinnie Jones as Sargon. But do not expect their normal brand of comedy because it has been replaced with visually graphic potty humor.
The sets and costumes are well created but near impossible to notice when there is a pile of sheep innards being interpreted by Oliver Platt, who plays the High Priest. The few interesting one-liners fail to save “Year One” from an aura similar to “Austin Powers in Goldmember“.
Why after great films like “School of Rock” and “Be Kind Rewind” is Jack Black purposely trying to end his career? Moreover, why has he decided to take Michael Cera with him? As for Michael Cera this awful sort of humor is not going to lead him out of the valley of “Juno” fandom.
The flick is better than “Nacho Libre”, but it is not comedy gold. If you enjoy simple potty humor you should definitely see the film, but if not plan to borrow the DVD from a friend only to be happy you did not purchase it.
The Reluctant Fundamentalist
Book
The Reluctant Fundamentalist is Mohsin Hamid's thrillingly provocative international bestseller...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Brood (1979) in Movies
Sep 4, 2020 (Updated Sep 4, 2020)
They're Waiting For You
Man i love David Cronenberg, his horror films are disturbing, disgusting, gory, burtal, horrorfying and terrorfying. All of those words describe this film.
The plot: follows a man and his mentally-ill ex-wife, who has been sequestered by a psychologist known for his controversial therapy techniques. A series of brutal unsolved murders serves as the backdrop for the central narrative.
Conceived by Cronenberg after his own acrimonious divorce, he intended the screenplay as a meditation on a fractured relationship between a husband and wife who share a child, and cast Eggar and Hindle as loose facsimiles of himself and his ex-wife. He would later state that, despite its incorporation of science fiction elements, he considered it his sole feature that most embodied a "classic horror film".
Written in the aftermath of writer-director Cronenberg's divorce from his wife, The Brood has been noted by critics and film scholars for its prominent themes surrounding fears of parenthood, as well as corollary preoccupations with repression and the treatment of mental illness in women.
The Brood is my version of Kramer vs. Kramer, but more realistic." —Cronenberg commenting on his concept of the film, 1979.
In retrospect, Cronenberg stated that he felt The Brood was "the most classic horror film I've done" in terms of structure.
The Brood had cuts demanded for its theatrical release in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom. Eggar conceived of the idea of licking the new fetuses that her character Nola Carveth has spawned. "I just thought that when cats have their kittens or dogs have puppies (and I think at that time I had about 8 dogs), they lick them as soon as they’re born. Lick, lick, lick, lick, lick…," Eggar said.
However, when the climactic scene was censored, Cronenberg responded: "I had a long and loving close-up of Samantha licking the fetus […] when the censors, those animals, cut it out, the result was that a lot of people thought she was eating her baby. That's much worse than I was suggesting.
Its a distubing film but a excellent film.
The plot: follows a man and his mentally-ill ex-wife, who has been sequestered by a psychologist known for his controversial therapy techniques. A series of brutal unsolved murders serves as the backdrop for the central narrative.
Conceived by Cronenberg after his own acrimonious divorce, he intended the screenplay as a meditation on a fractured relationship between a husband and wife who share a child, and cast Eggar and Hindle as loose facsimiles of himself and his ex-wife. He would later state that, despite its incorporation of science fiction elements, he considered it his sole feature that most embodied a "classic horror film".
Written in the aftermath of writer-director Cronenberg's divorce from his wife, The Brood has been noted by critics and film scholars for its prominent themes surrounding fears of parenthood, as well as corollary preoccupations with repression and the treatment of mental illness in women.
The Brood is my version of Kramer vs. Kramer, but more realistic." —Cronenberg commenting on his concept of the film, 1979.
In retrospect, Cronenberg stated that he felt The Brood was "the most classic horror film I've done" in terms of structure.
The Brood had cuts demanded for its theatrical release in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom. Eggar conceived of the idea of licking the new fetuses that her character Nola Carveth has spawned. "I just thought that when cats have their kittens or dogs have puppies (and I think at that time I had about 8 dogs), they lick them as soon as they’re born. Lick, lick, lick, lick, lick…," Eggar said.
However, when the climactic scene was censored, Cronenberg responded: "I had a long and loving close-up of Samantha licking the fetus […] when the censors, those animals, cut it out, the result was that a lot of people thought she was eating her baby. That's much worse than I was suggesting.
Its a distubing film but a excellent film.
theVman (16 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 6, 2018
Visual effects (1 more)
action scenes
Script (2 more)
Exposition
Casting
Ready Player Bomb!
I understand certain decisions and changes have to be made when adapting a book for the screen but with this one i just didnt understand or agree with 90% of them. For the most part the changes underminds the actual story the book was telling.
However, trying to be objective the best i can and looking at it just as a movie - i still didnt like it. For me it felt like the structure of the whole move was fractured. Everyone was totally miscast for my liking, leaving all the characters un-charismatic and un-endearing, leaving the story without a heart or a soul. I felt like the exposition was clunky at best, leading to the relationships between characters to either feel forced or not given them enough time to grow naturally, especially the "love interest" story. Also I felt it glossed over some key elements of the plot at the beginning, mainly due to the aforementioned clunky exposition, but also with its eagerness to go straight for throat with high octane action, which although brilliantly staged and choreographed through the camera, left me feeling like it was pointless, due to lack of context or feeling of any real threat. I never really felt like it got any of this right until the final battle in the climax of the film, but by then id given up the films ability to win me back.
Add to that the changes/difference from the book that failed to make any sense to me, or understand why they choose that direction to take - my frustration only grows and grows. The only real big change that i liked was the car race at the beginning which does not feature at all in the book...because it would be visually more exciting than what was actually written in the book. Some of the changes i felt like they were taking the safe option and lacked the balls of the book, such as the film choosing to let some character(s) not die, and pretty much totally ignoring the social commentary the book was making about big corporations, media influences, economic status of the world etc..... all things that i felt made the book as popular as it is in the first place. Popular enough that Spielberg wanted to turn it into a major motion picture.
However, trying to be objective the best i can and looking at it just as a movie - i still didnt like it. For me it felt like the structure of the whole move was fractured. Everyone was totally miscast for my liking, leaving all the characters un-charismatic and un-endearing, leaving the story without a heart or a soul. I felt like the exposition was clunky at best, leading to the relationships between characters to either feel forced or not given them enough time to grow naturally, especially the "love interest" story. Also I felt it glossed over some key elements of the plot at the beginning, mainly due to the aforementioned clunky exposition, but also with its eagerness to go straight for throat with high octane action, which although brilliantly staged and choreographed through the camera, left me feeling like it was pointless, due to lack of context or feeling of any real threat. I never really felt like it got any of this right until the final battle in the climax of the film, but by then id given up the films ability to win me back.
Add to that the changes/difference from the book that failed to make any sense to me, or understand why they choose that direction to take - my frustration only grows and grows. The only real big change that i liked was the car race at the beginning which does not feature at all in the book...because it would be visually more exciting than what was actually written in the book. Some of the changes i felt like they were taking the safe option and lacked the balls of the book, such as the film choosing to let some character(s) not die, and pretty much totally ignoring the social commentary the book was making about big corporations, media influences, economic status of the world etc..... all things that i felt made the book as popular as it is in the first place. Popular enough that Spielberg wanted to turn it into a major motion picture.
