Search
Search results
Becs (244 KP) rated Monster Catchers in Books
Jul 6, 2019
Captivating middle grade novel!
You can also find this review on my blog: bookingwayreads.wordpress.com
Thank you to Smith Publicity and the author, George Brewington, for allowing me the wonderful opportunity to be a part of the Monster Catchers blog tour and for sending me a copy to read and review.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: death, kidnapping
"We can't always think of ourselves. There are so many creatures in the world that need love."
Main Characters:
Bailey Buckleby - the main character and co-owner of Buckleby and Sons. He's a monster catcher like his father, but questions how his father goes about the business. Very compassionate and has a good Frisbee throwing arm.
Dougie Buckleby - Bailey's father and the owner of Buckleby and Sons. He has taught Bailey everything he knows about being a monster catcher. A bit selfish by not really listening to Bailey, even though he always ends up being right.
Savannah - schoolmate of Bailey's turned friend. A part of the Bullhead Brigade, which Nikos is also a part of.
Henry - baby Swiss troll that is taken in by Dougie. But is he?
Candycane Boom - a loan shark that ends up teaming up with Axel Pazuzu. Later become an alley to Bailey, Savannah, and Nikos.
Nikos - a Minotaur that is hired to take down Bailey and his father but after being beaten, he joins forces.
Axel Pazuzu - a cynocephaly (part human, part dog that is a god). Known for scamming people worse than Candycane Boom. Ends up causing a lot of problems for Bailey, Savannah, and Dougie.
"Sometimes passion makes one do really, really stupid things. You mustn't beat yourself up about it."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Monster Catchers is a middle grade novel about friendship, adventure, sacrifices, saving the ones you love, with a hint of romance and drama. It starts with Bailey sitting at the register in the family shop, rereading In the Shadows of Monsters by his favorite monster catcher. Some teenage boys come in looking for trouble, but Bailey scares them off by showing them the monitor that shows the back room. This very back room is where the real business of Buckleby and Sons take place: monster catching.
Soon after the group of teenage boys leave, a customer comes in needing to have a 'pest' taken care of. Once the Buckleby's are hired, Candycane Boom comes in looking for another fairy friend for his current fairy. He picks on out while Bailey walks Henry on Whalefat Beach. This is where the two meet Axel Pazuzu a cynocephaly, which is a half human, half dog god creature. Axel tries buying Henry from Bailey, but he refuses because he doesn't want to loose this best friend. Bailey quickly heads home with Henry before Axel tries stealing Henry away.
That night, Dougie and Bailey head out to the customer's home to catch the little rascal that has been stealing all of the lights. Well, things don't go according to plane and instead of catching just one little goblin, they catch two and encounter about ten others. This doesn't turn out for Dougie as one of the goblins bites his finger off!
After they returned home, Bailey fell asleep. The next morning, he headed to school to give the report that was due but that he wasn't ready for. So he improvised and told about one of the real stories from In the Shadow of Monsters. Now, the thing with people within Monster Catchers, is that they don't believe that the monsters are real. They are in a constant denial, even when they've seen the monsters themselves. This sparks some major debate in Bailey's class.
Savannah ends up following Bailey back to the store where she is introduced to all the monsters in the back room and even eventually meets Axel Pazuzu when they head to the beach to walk Henry. Axel hires Candycane to get Henry from the Buckleby's. Well, this causes a bunch of different action packed scenes that will leave you turning the pages until the ending.
When you think monsters, you don't think of a father-son duo saving California. But that's just what Dougie and Bailey Buckleby do. For the right price, they will capture anything from goblins and trolls to harpies and fairies. If it's a monster of any sort, the Buckleby's are the one's to call. But, Bailey soon finds out that his father has been lying to him all of his life and it must be he who saves the people of the world. Monster Catcher is a fast-paced, action-packed adventure that will capture young hearts everywhere.
Character/ Story background and development -
I was generally surprised at how much development was within this little novel. Especially for it being book one in a series and a debut! Bailey's and his fathers development were some of the best. The two go from best buds to Bailey questioning everything about him to having to sacrifice him for the sake of the world. It just blew me away the relationship that the duo had as they were massively different, but brought very similar aspects to the relationship.
Plot -
George Brewington weaves lessons of friendship, morals, and action into this fantasy filled debut. Bailey's interest in monsters is heartwarming, especially when he finds out that monsters have feelings and all aren't bad like they are perceived to be.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I honestly didn't seem to find any spelling or grammatical errors that popped out or took away from the overall story. Monster Catchers is a very well-written novel.
Enjoyment -
I really enjoyed going on an adventure with Bailey and all the lovable monsters. I will most defiantly be rereading this. One thing I rather enjoyed, that I have to point out, is how George Brewington mixed extremely important world issues like: environmental issues, understanding differences, and sacrifices along with adding that fantasy aspect that is common among middle-grade novels.
Overall -
With the interwoven lessons and morals, the fun and quirky lines, the cliff hangers, discovering oneself, understanding differences, Monster Catchers encourages the reader to think beyond the words that are written.
Do I recommend? -
Yes! I highly recommend The Monster Catchers by George Brewington. It was such a cute little novel and I need more!!
"We either try or die, Bailey Boy."
Thank you to Smith Publicity and the author, George Brewington, for allowing me the wonderful opportunity to be a part of the Monster Catchers blog tour and for sending me a copy to read and review.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: death, kidnapping
"We can't always think of ourselves. There are so many creatures in the world that need love."
Main Characters:
Bailey Buckleby - the main character and co-owner of Buckleby and Sons. He's a monster catcher like his father, but questions how his father goes about the business. Very compassionate and has a good Frisbee throwing arm.
Dougie Buckleby - Bailey's father and the owner of Buckleby and Sons. He has taught Bailey everything he knows about being a monster catcher. A bit selfish by not really listening to Bailey, even though he always ends up being right.
Savannah - schoolmate of Bailey's turned friend. A part of the Bullhead Brigade, which Nikos is also a part of.
Henry - baby Swiss troll that is taken in by Dougie. But is he?
Candycane Boom - a loan shark that ends up teaming up with Axel Pazuzu. Later become an alley to Bailey, Savannah, and Nikos.
Nikos - a Minotaur that is hired to take down Bailey and his father but after being beaten, he joins forces.
Axel Pazuzu - a cynocephaly (part human, part dog that is a god). Known for scamming people worse than Candycane Boom. Ends up causing a lot of problems for Bailey, Savannah, and Dougie.
"Sometimes passion makes one do really, really stupid things. You mustn't beat yourself up about it."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Monster Catchers is a middle grade novel about friendship, adventure, sacrifices, saving the ones you love, with a hint of romance and drama. It starts with Bailey sitting at the register in the family shop, rereading In the Shadows of Monsters by his favorite monster catcher. Some teenage boys come in looking for trouble, but Bailey scares them off by showing them the monitor that shows the back room. This very back room is where the real business of Buckleby and Sons take place: monster catching.
Soon after the group of teenage boys leave, a customer comes in needing to have a 'pest' taken care of. Once the Buckleby's are hired, Candycane Boom comes in looking for another fairy friend for his current fairy. He picks on out while Bailey walks Henry on Whalefat Beach. This is where the two meet Axel Pazuzu a cynocephaly, which is a half human, half dog god creature. Axel tries buying Henry from Bailey, but he refuses because he doesn't want to loose this best friend. Bailey quickly heads home with Henry before Axel tries stealing Henry away.
That night, Dougie and Bailey head out to the customer's home to catch the little rascal that has been stealing all of the lights. Well, things don't go according to plane and instead of catching just one little goblin, they catch two and encounter about ten others. This doesn't turn out for Dougie as one of the goblins bites his finger off!
After they returned home, Bailey fell asleep. The next morning, he headed to school to give the report that was due but that he wasn't ready for. So he improvised and told about one of the real stories from In the Shadow of Monsters. Now, the thing with people within Monster Catchers, is that they don't believe that the monsters are real. They are in a constant denial, even when they've seen the monsters themselves. This sparks some major debate in Bailey's class.
Savannah ends up following Bailey back to the store where she is introduced to all the monsters in the back room and even eventually meets Axel Pazuzu when they head to the beach to walk Henry. Axel hires Candycane to get Henry from the Buckleby's. Well, this causes a bunch of different action packed scenes that will leave you turning the pages until the ending.
When you think monsters, you don't think of a father-son duo saving California. But that's just what Dougie and Bailey Buckleby do. For the right price, they will capture anything from goblins and trolls to harpies and fairies. If it's a monster of any sort, the Buckleby's are the one's to call. But, Bailey soon finds out that his father has been lying to him all of his life and it must be he who saves the people of the world. Monster Catcher is a fast-paced, action-packed adventure that will capture young hearts everywhere.
Character/ Story background and development -
I was generally surprised at how much development was within this little novel. Especially for it being book one in a series and a debut! Bailey's and his fathers development were some of the best. The two go from best buds to Bailey questioning everything about him to having to sacrifice him for the sake of the world. It just blew me away the relationship that the duo had as they were massively different, but brought very similar aspects to the relationship.
Plot -
George Brewington weaves lessons of friendship, morals, and action into this fantasy filled debut. Bailey's interest in monsters is heartwarming, especially when he finds out that monsters have feelings and all aren't bad like they are perceived to be.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I honestly didn't seem to find any spelling or grammatical errors that popped out or took away from the overall story. Monster Catchers is a very well-written novel.
Enjoyment -
I really enjoyed going on an adventure with Bailey and all the lovable monsters. I will most defiantly be rereading this. One thing I rather enjoyed, that I have to point out, is how George Brewington mixed extremely important world issues like: environmental issues, understanding differences, and sacrifices along with adding that fantasy aspect that is common among middle-grade novels.
Overall -
With the interwoven lessons and morals, the fun and quirky lines, the cliff hangers, discovering oneself, understanding differences, Monster Catchers encourages the reader to think beyond the words that are written.
Do I recommend? -
Yes! I highly recommend The Monster Catchers by George Brewington. It was such a cute little novel and I need more!!
"We either try or die, Bailey Boy."
Lee (2222 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 11, 2020
British soldiers Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are taking a well earned rest in a peaceful French field when they are summoned to a meeting down in the trenches with General Erinmore (Colin Firth). Having believed that the Germans had retreated, and were now on the run, the General has now learned that they are in fact armed to the teeth and lying in wait for the unsuspecting battalion of 1600 Brits who are preparing to advance on them. Unfortunately, that battalion is quite a distance across country, and with telephone lines currently out of action, Blake and Schofield have been tasked by the General with delivering the message to call off the attack. And the reason for choosing Blake? His brother is one of the 1600 likely to meet their death if the message isn’t received before they attack the following morning.
The big talking point surrounding 1917 has been the ‘single shot’ effect that it uses in order to tell its story. We effectively follow Blake and Schofield in real time as they undertake their mission, with only a single camera shot tracking them, and only noticeably cutting away just once. The result is outstanding, delivering a seamless and fully immersive experience unlike anything you’ve experienced before, outside of a first person shooter video game.
Late last year, a short behind the scenes video for 1917 was released, showing how they’d used cameras hanging from wires, which were then passed to guys on foot, then to guys on vehicles, back and forth in order to achieve the effect. The result is that the camera glides effortlessly around the soldiers in the trenches and on the battlefields, through barbed wire and across bodies of water filled with rotting corpses. You feel the tension and all of the emotion right there, right alongside the soldiers who are experiencing it. It’s a truly amazing technical achievement.
Their journey takes them across no mans land, across the war-torn countryside, avoiding danger and all other obstacles in their way. And it’s edge of seat stuff, aided by an amazing heart pumping score and that incredible camera work. Hats off to George Mackay as Schofield too, who carries the majority of the movie and is really put through the wringer.
1917 has already earned itself a Golden Globe, and nine BAFTA nominations, just this last week alone. And it deserves it all. Bold, ambitious storytelling, and an early contender for this years best movie.
The big talking point surrounding 1917 has been the ‘single shot’ effect that it uses in order to tell its story. We effectively follow Blake and Schofield in real time as they undertake their mission, with only a single camera shot tracking them, and only noticeably cutting away just once. The result is outstanding, delivering a seamless and fully immersive experience unlike anything you’ve experienced before, outside of a first person shooter video game.
Late last year, a short behind the scenes video for 1917 was released, showing how they’d used cameras hanging from wires, which were then passed to guys on foot, then to guys on vehicles, back and forth in order to achieve the effect. The result is that the camera glides effortlessly around the soldiers in the trenches and on the battlefields, through barbed wire and across bodies of water filled with rotting corpses. You feel the tension and all of the emotion right there, right alongside the soldiers who are experiencing it. It’s a truly amazing technical achievement.
Their journey takes them across no mans land, across the war-torn countryside, avoiding danger and all other obstacles in their way. And it’s edge of seat stuff, aided by an amazing heart pumping score and that incredible camera work. Hats off to George Mackay as Schofield too, who carries the majority of the movie and is really put through the wringer.
1917 has already earned itself a Golden Globe, and nine BAFTA nominations, just this last week alone. And it deserves it all. Bold, ambitious storytelling, and an early contender for this years best movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Car Dogs (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
One of the things that universally connects us in this world is driving. Eventually, in life, the other factor involved is buying a vehicle. Depending on your experience, it can be nerve wracking, intensely crazy or enjoyable. Almost everyone has a story about the first car they purchased. For some it is the entire process, spotting THE car or coming up against the salespeople. This common thread allows us to identify with each other. With Car Dogs, you will find yourself immersed in the world of car sales.
Mark Chamberlain (Patrick J. Adams) is a sales manager at his father’s dealership. He is in line to get his own shop once he fulfills the quota assigned by his dad. We see Mark go through his day handling purchase issues, client issues and his salespeople in the bullpen. Christian (George Lopez, playing against type) is one of the top dogs at Chamberlain. He gets assigned a fresh rookie on the day that he is busting to make his numbers. Sharon (Nia Vardalos) Is the clever sales guru that is always in competition with Christian. She plays Sharon as a tough but smart sales rep with a warm likability. George Lopez and Nia Vardalos are both well known for comedic parts and they play against type with such care that their performances are refreshingly unexpected.
Patrick J. Adams evokes the stress and pressure that he slowly builds throughout the day, taking us with him as the clock counts down to the hour of reckoning that is the sales goal of 35 cars for the day. This number is enforced by Mark’s father Malcolm (Chris Mulkey) embodying the old school stereotype of a car dealer, pushing his son in a supremely passive-aggressive dance with his brown nosing sadist sidekick Mike (Josh Hopkins).
Filmed on location in Scottsdale, Arizona. Directed by Adam Collis, taking us on a road trip that has familiar sites and unexpected surprises. Mark Edward King’s script pulls the curtain back from a world we rarely see the inner workings and shows us that even car salesmen, although can be real jerks to get the sale, are also human.
Whether you have bought or sold a car. Shopped or searched for the right one, dealt with some B.S. artist or had a fantastic experience. This movie provides the viewer with moments at a dealership that are so familiar, yet gives us a look at how they function behind the sales desk.
Mark Chamberlain (Patrick J. Adams) is a sales manager at his father’s dealership. He is in line to get his own shop once he fulfills the quota assigned by his dad. We see Mark go through his day handling purchase issues, client issues and his salespeople in the bullpen. Christian (George Lopez, playing against type) is one of the top dogs at Chamberlain. He gets assigned a fresh rookie on the day that he is busting to make his numbers. Sharon (Nia Vardalos) Is the clever sales guru that is always in competition with Christian. She plays Sharon as a tough but smart sales rep with a warm likability. George Lopez and Nia Vardalos are both well known for comedic parts and they play against type with such care that their performances are refreshingly unexpected.
Patrick J. Adams evokes the stress and pressure that he slowly builds throughout the day, taking us with him as the clock counts down to the hour of reckoning that is the sales goal of 35 cars for the day. This number is enforced by Mark’s father Malcolm (Chris Mulkey) embodying the old school stereotype of a car dealer, pushing his son in a supremely passive-aggressive dance with his brown nosing sadist sidekick Mike (Josh Hopkins).
Filmed on location in Scottsdale, Arizona. Directed by Adam Collis, taking us on a road trip that has familiar sites and unexpected surprises. Mark Edward King’s script pulls the curtain back from a world we rarely see the inner workings and shows us that even car salesmen, although can be real jerks to get the sale, are also human.
Whether you have bought or sold a car. Shopped or searched for the right one, dealt with some B.S. artist or had a fantastic experience. This movie provides the viewer with moments at a dealership that are so familiar, yet gives us a look at how they function behind the sales desk.
Kevin Wilson (179 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Jul 23, 2018
Amazing plot (3 more)
Fantastic cast
Lovable characters
Interesting take on a time machine
1 of my favourite movies of all time!
This is a masterpiece and a classic.
The writing is spot on, the acting and cast are perfect and could never be replaced if there was ever talk of a remake (please dont)
The idea to have the time machine as a car was genius. I know the initial idea was a refrigerator which would have been weird so I'm happy they changed their mind. The effects of going up to 88 miles per hour and see the light flash in front of the delorian before it speeds through time was impressive. They got the look of the 50s spot on.
Michael j fox and Christopher lloyd give excellent performances. Their characters are lovable, fun and just perfect. Crispin Glover is as weird as ever but great as George while lea Thompson was also great Lorraine but not as believable as an older version of herself.Tom Wilson was perfect as the bully biff and was shocked not to see him in more stuff afterwards.
The plot is great. Go back in time, make sure your parents get together to make sure your born. This was great chance for many funny scenes involving Marty and his parents. But this is where the logic didn't make sense. He went through all this so why don't his parents remember him from when they were younger.
If you ain't seen this before, where have you been? It's a classic and a must see for anyone. It's funny, it's charming and it's geeky at times.
The writing is spot on, the acting and cast are perfect and could never be replaced if there was ever talk of a remake (please dont)
The idea to have the time machine as a car was genius. I know the initial idea was a refrigerator which would have been weird so I'm happy they changed their mind. The effects of going up to 88 miles per hour and see the light flash in front of the delorian before it speeds through time was impressive. They got the look of the 50s spot on.
Michael j fox and Christopher lloyd give excellent performances. Their characters are lovable, fun and just perfect. Crispin Glover is as weird as ever but great as George while lea Thompson was also great Lorraine but not as believable as an older version of herself.Tom Wilson was perfect as the bully biff and was shocked not to see him in more stuff afterwards.
The plot is great. Go back in time, make sure your parents get together to make sure your born. This was great chance for many funny scenes involving Marty and his parents. But this is where the logic didn't make sense. He went through all this so why don't his parents remember him from when they were younger.
If you ain't seen this before, where have you been? It's a classic and a must see for anyone. It's funny, it's charming and it's geeky at times.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
It’s a story we’re pretty much all familiar with – Tarzan, a man who was raised in the jungle by apes that took him in as a baby after his parents died.
In “The Legend of Tarzan,” it is the 1880’s and royal corruption brews beneath the surface. Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgard), now an adult, is living as John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie).
His civilized life is interrupted when he is sent back to the Congo as a trade emissary. Unfortunately, he is at the center of the wicked plans of Captain Léon Rom (Christoph Waltz). Rom has made a deal to trade Tarzan in exchange for diamonds to a tribal chief who plans to butcher and eat him. Waltz does a great job playing a sleazy political criminal with beady eyes and a greasy mustache.
Samuel L. Jackson is also fun to watch as George Washington Williams, who accompanies Tarzan to the Congo when he follows up on his own suspicions.
While the film is quite enjoyable, and very pretty to look at (special thanks to Skarsgard). Tarzan isn’t as animalistic as you would expect, Jane lacks authentic emotion, and at times the CGI is a bit low quality.
“The Legend of Tarzan” is one of those short, sweet, and fun summer movies and is definitely worth watching. With political undertones of greed, slavery, and human destruction, it also has deeper value.
This is one that everyone can watch. It’s not too violent, it’s not to edgy, and it’s not too long. I give “The Legend of Tarzan” 3.5 out of 5 stars.
In “The Legend of Tarzan,” it is the 1880’s and royal corruption brews beneath the surface. Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgard), now an adult, is living as John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie).
His civilized life is interrupted when he is sent back to the Congo as a trade emissary. Unfortunately, he is at the center of the wicked plans of Captain Léon Rom (Christoph Waltz). Rom has made a deal to trade Tarzan in exchange for diamonds to a tribal chief who plans to butcher and eat him. Waltz does a great job playing a sleazy political criminal with beady eyes and a greasy mustache.
Samuel L. Jackson is also fun to watch as George Washington Williams, who accompanies Tarzan to the Congo when he follows up on his own suspicions.
While the film is quite enjoyable, and very pretty to look at (special thanks to Skarsgard). Tarzan isn’t as animalistic as you would expect, Jane lacks authentic emotion, and at times the CGI is a bit low quality.
“The Legend of Tarzan” is one of those short, sweet, and fun summer movies and is definitely worth watching. With political undertones of greed, slavery, and human destruction, it also has deeper value.
This is one that everyone can watch. It’s not too violent, it’s not to edgy, and it’s not too long. I give “The Legend of Tarzan” 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Storms of Malhado in Books
May 18, 2020
I admit that when I read the book synopsis for Storms of Malhado by Maria Elena Sandovici and saw there were ghosts involved, I knew I had to read this book! While it turned out not to be so much of a ghost story but something much much more, it was still a great read!
I felt that the plot for Storms of Malhado was fairly original. The reader is taken through three different points in time starting in 1900 with Suzanne's story, followed by 1961 with Betty's story, and then to 2008 with Katie's story. We learn of how each woman is with a man that is slippery and unobtainable yet each woman yearns to make the relationship work. Each story leads up to a horrible hurricane from each year. What will each woman sacrifice for love, and will it lead up to their demise? Storms of Malhado is full of life lessons, the strongest being that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. There is so much symbolism throughout this novel which I didn't catch some of it until I finished reading and reflected back on what I had just read. Sandovici does a fantastic job at painting a beautiful picture of what life was like for each woman. It's easy to get lost in the narrative and forget you're only reading about the characters instead of living their life! The only thing about the plot that lets it down a little is the ending. It just felt a bit messy and confusing. I can't go into great detail because of spoilers. The ending, while I believe in what happened, just seemed a little far fetched and a little too neat if that makes sense. Three people experiencing the same thing at the same time and calling each other by different names, well, it just seemed kind of out there. I wish I could go into more detail, but I really don't want to give too much away. However, all loose ends are tied up by the end of book, and it becomes obvious how all three narratives within Storms of Malhado are related.
The majority of the characters in Storms of Malhado were well fleshed out and very realistic feeling. I enjoyed reading about Suzanne, Josephine, and Desmond. Suzanne was an interesting character to read about, but there were times she made me angry especially towards her ending. I could actually feel how much she loved and longed after Desmond. I just felt that she could be a little selfish at times. However, I feel that we've all been a little selfish when it comes to love. I could really feel how much Josephine loved Suzanne and wanted the best for her. Josephine was such a great character! Betty, Edna, and Cornelius also had an interesting story line. I felt like I connected with Betty the most. I could feel her frustration with Carl seeping through the pages as well as how much she wanted Cornelius no matter how frustrating he was. I loved Edna the most though, and it made me wish I had an Edna in my life to care for me and be there for me. Betty seemed to not have her head in the clouds as much as Suzanne did which was nice. The narrative I felt that was a little underdeveloped was that of Katie, her boyfriend George, and her mother. We don't get to read much about them until the very end. I would have liked more insight into George and Katie's relationship before the storm hits. The reader gets all this backstory into Suzanne's and Desmond's relationship as well as Betty's and Cornelius' relationship, yet there isn't much back story for Katie and George. All of a sudden towards the ending, we are told that Katie and George have a rocky relationship. I wanted to know why it was so rocky instead of just little bits and pieces. Katie's and George's relationship just felt like it was missing so much. The relationship between Katie and her mother also felt lacking. If her relationship was a strong with her mother as the relationship between Suzanne and Josephine as well as the relationship between Betty and Edna, it did not come across that way in the book. Katie's relationships just felt rushed.
Trigger warnings for Storms of Malhado include infidelity, adultery, alcohol use, death, drug use, some light profanity, and sexual situations (although not graphic).
All in all, Storms of Malhado is a highly interesting read that will leave you hooked on each and every word. It grabs you by the hand and doesn't let go until the end. With fantastic writing, a highly interesting plot, and entertaining characters, Storms of Malhado is a must read. I would definitely recommend Storms of Malhado by Maria Elena Sandovici to those aged 16+ who are after a book that will leave them thinking about it long after they are done reading it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Maria Elena Sandovici for providing me with a paperback of Storms of Malhado in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I felt that the plot for Storms of Malhado was fairly original. The reader is taken through three different points in time starting in 1900 with Suzanne's story, followed by 1961 with Betty's story, and then to 2008 with Katie's story. We learn of how each woman is with a man that is slippery and unobtainable yet each woman yearns to make the relationship work. Each story leads up to a horrible hurricane from each year. What will each woman sacrifice for love, and will it lead up to their demise? Storms of Malhado is full of life lessons, the strongest being that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. There is so much symbolism throughout this novel which I didn't catch some of it until I finished reading and reflected back on what I had just read. Sandovici does a fantastic job at painting a beautiful picture of what life was like for each woman. It's easy to get lost in the narrative and forget you're only reading about the characters instead of living their life! The only thing about the plot that lets it down a little is the ending. It just felt a bit messy and confusing. I can't go into great detail because of spoilers. The ending, while I believe in what happened, just seemed a little far fetched and a little too neat if that makes sense. Three people experiencing the same thing at the same time and calling each other by different names, well, it just seemed kind of out there. I wish I could go into more detail, but I really don't want to give too much away. However, all loose ends are tied up by the end of book, and it becomes obvious how all three narratives within Storms of Malhado are related.
The majority of the characters in Storms of Malhado were well fleshed out and very realistic feeling. I enjoyed reading about Suzanne, Josephine, and Desmond. Suzanne was an interesting character to read about, but there were times she made me angry especially towards her ending. I could actually feel how much she loved and longed after Desmond. I just felt that she could be a little selfish at times. However, I feel that we've all been a little selfish when it comes to love. I could really feel how much Josephine loved Suzanne and wanted the best for her. Josephine was such a great character! Betty, Edna, and Cornelius also had an interesting story line. I felt like I connected with Betty the most. I could feel her frustration with Carl seeping through the pages as well as how much she wanted Cornelius no matter how frustrating he was. I loved Edna the most though, and it made me wish I had an Edna in my life to care for me and be there for me. Betty seemed to not have her head in the clouds as much as Suzanne did which was nice. The narrative I felt that was a little underdeveloped was that of Katie, her boyfriend George, and her mother. We don't get to read much about them until the very end. I would have liked more insight into George and Katie's relationship before the storm hits. The reader gets all this backstory into Suzanne's and Desmond's relationship as well as Betty's and Cornelius' relationship, yet there isn't much back story for Katie and George. All of a sudden towards the ending, we are told that Katie and George have a rocky relationship. I wanted to know why it was so rocky instead of just little bits and pieces. Katie's and George's relationship just felt like it was missing so much. The relationship between Katie and her mother also felt lacking. If her relationship was a strong with her mother as the relationship between Suzanne and Josephine as well as the relationship between Betty and Edna, it did not come across that way in the book. Katie's relationships just felt rushed.
Trigger warnings for Storms of Malhado include infidelity, adultery, alcohol use, death, drug use, some light profanity, and sexual situations (although not graphic).
All in all, Storms of Malhado is a highly interesting read that will leave you hooked on each and every word. It grabs you by the hand and doesn't let go until the end. With fantastic writing, a highly interesting plot, and entertaining characters, Storms of Malhado is a must read. I would definitely recommend Storms of Malhado by Maria Elena Sandovici to those aged 16+ who are after a book that will leave them thinking about it long after they are done reading it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Maria Elena Sandovici for providing me with a paperback of Storms of Malhado in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Game Of Thrones - Season 7 in TV
Sep 5, 2017
Inconsistent characters (2 more)
Lazy writing
Huge plot holes
Who Wrote This?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Full disclosure, I wasn't a huge GoT fan to begin with, but this season takes the cake for the amount of nonsense it expected the viewer to accept without question. The show is ahead of the books at this point, so its no longer based on George RR Martin's books and it shows.
From this point on, I will be spoiling the events of the season, so if you haven't seen it and you care about spoilers, look away now.
If you are looking for a drinking game to play this season, drink every time Danyres is an entitled brat, drink every time Bran says something pretentious, drink every time John mentions the white walkers and drink when Tyrion screws up and I guarantee you that you won't be able to stand up by the end of the season.
There were two things in particular that got under my skin this season. First of all Littlefinger, (the supposed 'smartest character in the show,') got outsmarted by Arya and Sansa? Are you kidding? His death was so unsatisfying and ridiculous and in past seasons that character would have never have been stupid enough to get himself into that situation without working out a way to get himself away with his life.
The second thing is Bran. You can't have an all knowing character that doesn't know things. How is it that Sam has to be the one to tell Bran about John's parents being married when he was born? I've heard the excuse made that Bran has to choose to go to a period in history in order to see what happened at that time, but we have seen that he was back there last season when John was born in that tower! Also, why didn't he inform his brother that the Night King had a dragon, as soon as it happened? I realise that Bran is in Winterfell and John is with Danyres, but in the last episode, John sends Bran a note via carrier pigeon, so why couldn't he have sent one to John? Why didn't Bran see that Cersei was going to betray John and Danyres? If in the next season John and Dany are surprised when Cersei doesn't back them, then the writing for this show has well and truly fell off a cliff.
From this point on, I will be spoiling the events of the season, so if you haven't seen it and you care about spoilers, look away now.
If you are looking for a drinking game to play this season, drink every time Danyres is an entitled brat, drink every time Bran says something pretentious, drink every time John mentions the white walkers and drink when Tyrion screws up and I guarantee you that you won't be able to stand up by the end of the season.
There were two things in particular that got under my skin this season. First of all Littlefinger, (the supposed 'smartest character in the show,') got outsmarted by Arya and Sansa? Are you kidding? His death was so unsatisfying and ridiculous and in past seasons that character would have never have been stupid enough to get himself into that situation without working out a way to get himself away with his life.
The second thing is Bran. You can't have an all knowing character that doesn't know things. How is it that Sam has to be the one to tell Bran about John's parents being married when he was born? I've heard the excuse made that Bran has to choose to go to a period in history in order to see what happened at that time, but we have seen that he was back there last season when John was born in that tower! Also, why didn't he inform his brother that the Night King had a dragon, as soon as it happened? I realise that Bran is in Winterfell and John is with Danyres, but in the last episode, John sends Bran a note via carrier pigeon, so why couldn't he have sent one to John? Why didn't Bran see that Cersei was going to betray John and Danyres? If in the next season John and Dany are surprised when Cersei doesn't back them, then the writing for this show has well and truly fell off a cliff.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Truth (2015) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019
The truth is out there...
Doubtful anyone from outside the United States (or even many within the US) would remember "Rathergate", the subject this film explores, but I found it fascinating nonetheless.
The US during the 2004 presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry saw the usual mudslinging back and forth, but this film is not really about that. The film focuses on a news story by CBS news involving then airmen George W Bush and his "attempt" to get out of going to Vietnam and certain important military paper which were supposed to have corroborated these events.
Producer Mary Mapes and then anchor Dan Rather decided to air the story on 60 Minutes before they had flushed out all their sources and may have brushed aside criticism which happened to be against their political beliefs and ran with the story anyways. After airing in the fall of 2004 certain aspects of the documents came into question as to whether they could've been written with typewriters of the time or whether these documents were forgeries made by someone who could've merely used Microsoft Word instead.
Repeated attempts to legitimize their accuracy ended up having the opposite effects having witnesses change their stories, allegiances or even admit they had not been honest when presenting their original facts.
Since this is based on actual events, I can say this ended up costing producer Mapes and Rather their careers and sullied their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Even though the film has a very specific set of facts it has to deal with, I found it just as interesting when the director showed scenes of the audience viewing the story when it aired and then began to think about the state of modern news.
Nowadays, most people get their news cycle from internet headlines, scrolling information at the bottoms of television screens and even siloed one-sided stories that support only their own personal political beliefs
I think the broader message this film is trying to convey is that news organizations have the utmost responsibility to not only the report the news, but to keep their biases out of the mix and to make sure every fact is checked and rechecked to make sure they report accurately. News can change public opinion and even though they mostly get things correct, mostly isn't good enough.
I love Cate Blanchett and the legend Robert Redford and they don't disappoint here. The screenplay by writer and first time director James Vanderbilt is pointed and mostly avoids injecting opinion into the facts and presents an interesting and fascinating film I would easily recommend.
The US during the 2004 presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry saw the usual mudslinging back and forth, but this film is not really about that. The film focuses on a news story by CBS news involving then airmen George W Bush and his "attempt" to get out of going to Vietnam and certain important military paper which were supposed to have corroborated these events.
Producer Mary Mapes and then anchor Dan Rather decided to air the story on 60 Minutes before they had flushed out all their sources and may have brushed aside criticism which happened to be against their political beliefs and ran with the story anyways. After airing in the fall of 2004 certain aspects of the documents came into question as to whether they could've been written with typewriters of the time or whether these documents were forgeries made by someone who could've merely used Microsoft Word instead.
Repeated attempts to legitimize their accuracy ended up having the opposite effects having witnesses change their stories, allegiances or even admit they had not been honest when presenting their original facts.
Since this is based on actual events, I can say this ended up costing producer Mapes and Rather their careers and sullied their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Even though the film has a very specific set of facts it has to deal with, I found it just as interesting when the director showed scenes of the audience viewing the story when it aired and then began to think about the state of modern news.
Nowadays, most people get their news cycle from internet headlines, scrolling information at the bottoms of television screens and even siloed one-sided stories that support only their own personal political beliefs
I think the broader message this film is trying to convey is that news organizations have the utmost responsibility to not only the report the news, but to keep their biases out of the mix and to make sure every fact is checked and rechecked to make sure they report accurately. News can change public opinion and even though they mostly get things correct, mostly isn't good enough.
I love Cate Blanchett and the legend Robert Redford and they don't disappoint here. The screenplay by writer and first time director James Vanderbilt is pointed and mostly avoids injecting opinion into the facts and presents an interesting and fascinating film I would easily recommend.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
