Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Stumptown: The Case of the Girl Who Took Her Shampoo: Volume 1 in Books
May 21, 2020
After spotting in the trailer for the TV adaptation that it was based on a book I nipped off to order it straight away... I think it's great that people can see the potential in books that will make an interesting adaptation, with Stumptown I find that particularly impressive because I didn't find it that gripping. This first volume is four issues with one storyline and beyond that there are three more books which I haven't read, potentially there are things I picked up on that are resolved in later volumes. If that is the case though it's a bit of a problem for me because I don't really want to read any more of them.
I found the characters to be mostly non-descript both in the story and visually. On my first read-through I kept having to pop back a few pages and rereading when I lost track of who was who in a scene. It sadly didn't get much clearer on my second read-through.
Our main character is Dex Parios, a PI with a gambling problem. From the very beginning she isn't painted as a very likeable person, it's more than just some of the personality traits, she's been created as a gungho, mildly sex-driven, incompetent woman. At one point I put the book down because she was getting beaten up again with seemingly no real point. There's an almost leering quality to her (as well as other characters) in the illustrations and the inference from the text, as the only character that we really get to know this doesn't make compelling reading.
The storyline runs around the disappearance of a girl, her grandmother who runs the casino Dex is in debt to asks her to investigate and bring her back. That was perfectly introduced, though it took up a lot of pages, but other parts of the story don't click. As I said, I've read the book twice and still can't remember the reason for the second major part of the story... it feels very cloak and dagger which is perhaps why it wasn't very engaging.
Illustrations in comics/graphic novels are either hit or miss for me. The lettering here is pretty standard and managed to be clear and well laid out which was a great boost as sometimes it can get very chunky making it difficult to read. With the illustrations themselves you've got a nice colour palette that changes with the scenes and definitely helps move things along. Beyond that though I'm ultimately not a fan of the finished style, there's not enough differentiation between the characters and, as I mentioned above, it made for a difficult first read.
As an overall story there's something in it but it's a real challenge to like the characters, there wasn't anyone who I was looking forward to seeing again. Dex is given what feels like token bisexuality, it's not expressly pointed out but it's hinted at in a variety of ways. Her sexuality in general is quite heavy handed and I wouldn't be surprised if later down the line we find out she's slept with most of the recurring characters.
After I finished my first reading of Stumptown I messaged a friend... "It was bad and now I'm not sure I want to watch the series they made of it"... I pondered on that for a while because I was tired and maybe I was grumpy while reading it, the second reading came the next day, but even being more alert and less distracted by unfamiliar content I didn't get anything better out of this volume.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/based-on-stumptown.html
I found the characters to be mostly non-descript both in the story and visually. On my first read-through I kept having to pop back a few pages and rereading when I lost track of who was who in a scene. It sadly didn't get much clearer on my second read-through.
Our main character is Dex Parios, a PI with a gambling problem. From the very beginning she isn't painted as a very likeable person, it's more than just some of the personality traits, she's been created as a gungho, mildly sex-driven, incompetent woman. At one point I put the book down because she was getting beaten up again with seemingly no real point. There's an almost leering quality to her (as well as other characters) in the illustrations and the inference from the text, as the only character that we really get to know this doesn't make compelling reading.
The storyline runs around the disappearance of a girl, her grandmother who runs the casino Dex is in debt to asks her to investigate and bring her back. That was perfectly introduced, though it took up a lot of pages, but other parts of the story don't click. As I said, I've read the book twice and still can't remember the reason for the second major part of the story... it feels very cloak and dagger which is perhaps why it wasn't very engaging.
Illustrations in comics/graphic novels are either hit or miss for me. The lettering here is pretty standard and managed to be clear and well laid out which was a great boost as sometimes it can get very chunky making it difficult to read. With the illustrations themselves you've got a nice colour palette that changes with the scenes and definitely helps move things along. Beyond that though I'm ultimately not a fan of the finished style, there's not enough differentiation between the characters and, as I mentioned above, it made for a difficult first read.
As an overall story there's something in it but it's a real challenge to like the characters, there wasn't anyone who I was looking forward to seeing again. Dex is given what feels like token bisexuality, it's not expressly pointed out but it's hinted at in a variety of ways. Her sexuality in general is quite heavy handed and I wouldn't be surprised if later down the line we find out she's slept with most of the recurring characters.
After I finished my first reading of Stumptown I messaged a friend... "It was bad and now I'm not sure I want to watch the series they made of it"... I pondered on that for a while because I was tired and maybe I was grumpy while reading it, the second reading came the next day, but even being more alert and less distracted by unfamiliar content I didn't get anything better out of this volume.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/based-on-stumptown.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Snowpiercer (2013) in Movies
Jun 7, 2020
You know when someone tells you you should watch something... and then someone else does... and after every new "oh my god, you haven't seen it?!" you become more stubborn about watching it? That's exactly why it has taken me so long to watch Snowpiercer.
With the world on the edge of a complete climate collapse scientists launched what they hoped was the solution to the crisis, they would cool the atmosphere and save everyone... but their solution proved to be the world's undoing. What's left of the human race now rides a purpose-built train outrunning an icy end. The people of the tail section are living a terrible life, no natural light, barely any food... they want things to change, but the rest of the train has other ideas.
There's an all star cast on board for Snowpiercer, they've definitely not scrimped in that department. Together everyone works, even with some strong character personalities.
Chris Evans plays our lead, Curtis. Evans can do a lot of different genres but this sort of science fiction didn't seem to suit him. Curtis is a flawed character by design but at no point did he feel like someone to get behind, it's possible to like a flawed leader but this one didn't have the strength to make it convincing.
Tilda Swinton pops up and gives us the much expected slightly nuts performance that only she could muster. While I enjoyed it I'm not sure what it added to the proceedings apart from a very over the top sci-fi edge.
In the confined spaces of the train you get a great sense of how they're living and the cameras are placed in such a way that it never feels claustrophobic. Even in the tail section where you'd expect that, the closeness boosts the bond between characters and the way their planning comes together.
The film has a very clear divide when it comes to life both inside and out of the train. The sweeping bright white landscape with the dark and vibrant interiors, the dull tones of the tail to the richness of the ticketed sections. There's a lot to see in all of it and I'm certainly keen to give it another watch to try and pick out more details from inside the train and what's hidden in the snow... though I have some issues believing that some of that stuff would have still been visible with the wind and weather... but anyway.
There's some movie "magic" that I have a problem with in Snowpiercer, specifically a shoot-out scene that I actively dislike because it's ridiculous. I happily suspend my logical thinking for so many things but this scene annoyed me a lot, there were so many alternative ways to do it that would have been believable... ugh... *deep breath*. I'm going to stop on that now to avoid ranting and spoilers.
It's a great idea and the original story from the graphic novel is an excellent piece to work off, and while the adaptation might not be faithful to that it does add something that's necessary for a single film format. Because of the story and the design of the set there's automatically a natural progression to everything but the film isn't entirely balanced. The beginning feels very heavy and drawn out then we get a sprint for the finish. There's a lot of opportunity for expanded story in the middle but it's not taken up, including it may have changed the tone of the film as it definitely wasn't in keeping with the rest but it would have been interesting to find out more about it. (This is one thing I'm hoping we get to see a bit more of in the TV show.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/snowpiercer-movie-review.html
With the world on the edge of a complete climate collapse scientists launched what they hoped was the solution to the crisis, they would cool the atmosphere and save everyone... but their solution proved to be the world's undoing. What's left of the human race now rides a purpose-built train outrunning an icy end. The people of the tail section are living a terrible life, no natural light, barely any food... they want things to change, but the rest of the train has other ideas.
There's an all star cast on board for Snowpiercer, they've definitely not scrimped in that department. Together everyone works, even with some strong character personalities.
Chris Evans plays our lead, Curtis. Evans can do a lot of different genres but this sort of science fiction didn't seem to suit him. Curtis is a flawed character by design but at no point did he feel like someone to get behind, it's possible to like a flawed leader but this one didn't have the strength to make it convincing.
Tilda Swinton pops up and gives us the much expected slightly nuts performance that only she could muster. While I enjoyed it I'm not sure what it added to the proceedings apart from a very over the top sci-fi edge.
In the confined spaces of the train you get a great sense of how they're living and the cameras are placed in such a way that it never feels claustrophobic. Even in the tail section where you'd expect that, the closeness boosts the bond between characters and the way their planning comes together.
The film has a very clear divide when it comes to life both inside and out of the train. The sweeping bright white landscape with the dark and vibrant interiors, the dull tones of the tail to the richness of the ticketed sections. There's a lot to see in all of it and I'm certainly keen to give it another watch to try and pick out more details from inside the train and what's hidden in the snow... though I have some issues believing that some of that stuff would have still been visible with the wind and weather... but anyway.
There's some movie "magic" that I have a problem with in Snowpiercer, specifically a shoot-out scene that I actively dislike because it's ridiculous. I happily suspend my logical thinking for so many things but this scene annoyed me a lot, there were so many alternative ways to do it that would have been believable... ugh... *deep breath*. I'm going to stop on that now to avoid ranting and spoilers.
It's a great idea and the original story from the graphic novel is an excellent piece to work off, and while the adaptation might not be faithful to that it does add something that's necessary for a single film format. Because of the story and the design of the set there's automatically a natural progression to everything but the film isn't entirely balanced. The beginning feels very heavy and drawn out then we get a sprint for the finish. There's a lot of opportunity for expanded story in the middle but it's not taken up, including it may have changed the tone of the film as it definitely wasn't in keeping with the rest but it would have been interesting to find out more about it. (This is one thing I'm hoping we get to see a bit more of in the TV show.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/snowpiercer-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We’re trudging through the slush”.
Unlike its animated namesake, “The Snowman” is not a good film. Frustratingly it has all the right ingredients:
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Girl Who Could Breathe Under Water in Books
Jan 2, 2022
I will admit that I've been in a reading slump for awhile. However, when I read the synopsis for The Girl Who Could Breathe Under Water by Erin Bartels, it sounded just like the book I need to get me out of my slump. Luckily I was right!
I thoroughly enjoyed the plot of The Girl Who Could Breathe Under Water by Erin Bartels. It was definitely interesting to see how and why writers put a little bit of truth in their books. I was very interested in trying to find out what was truth and what was fiction in Kendra's life. I wanted to know if the bad thing was really as Kendra remembered it or if it was just something she had stretched the truth about. This book does have a few plot twists, and while I did predict one, I found myself guessing incorrectly at the other twists. The author does a fantastic job at typing up any and all loose ends by the end of the book. I must say that I also very much enjoyed the writing and language Erin Bartels used. Her descriptive prose put me right into the heart of the story. I was drawn in with every word, and once I started reading, it was hard for me to stop. Even though this book does deal with some heavy subjects, Bartels did an excellent job at writing about them with much care and sensitivity. (Be sure to read the author's note at the end of the book for a bit more insight into the novel. You won't regret it.)
The characters in The Girl Who Could Breathe Under Water were written very well. I found myself really loving the character of Kendra. She seemed like the type of girl I could relate to and that I'd love to be friends with. I enjoyed getting to see a glimpse into her memories (even the horrible ones). Her back story was interesting with what she had been through. I wish we could have read more about Andreas' back story. He was a strong character, don't get me wrong, but I felt like I didn't really know him all too well. He was always shrouded in a bit of mystery. Tyler's back story was the most interesting (and a little heartbreaking). Even though I never really cared for Tyler as a person, he was still a very well written character. I wish he would have gotten in trouble for what he did, but just as in real life, not everything happens as it should. I also loved the character of Cami. Although she seems a bit selfish, what she had been through makes it a bit easier to see why she was the way she was. I'm not excusing her actions by no means, but I can see the reasoning behind it. I also loved Robert as Kendra's mentor. He was such a laid back and loving character.
Trigger warnings for The Girl Who Could Breathe Under Water include some slight bullying, sexual harassment, molestation, rape (though not graphic), child prostitution, alcohol, mentions of drug use, death, and suicide.
All in all, The Girl Who Could Breathe Under Water is a beautifully written book showing that even in the fact of tragedy and trauma, we can still rise above our circumstances. I would definitely recommend The Girl Who Could Breath Under Water by Erin Bartels to those ages 16+ who are after a book with great emotional depth.
--
(A special thank you to Revell for providing me with a paperback of The Girl Who Could Breathe Under Water by Erin Bartels in exchange for a fair and honest review.)
I thoroughly enjoyed the plot of The Girl Who Could Breathe Under Water by Erin Bartels. It was definitely interesting to see how and why writers put a little bit of truth in their books. I was very interested in trying to find out what was truth and what was fiction in Kendra's life. I wanted to know if the bad thing was really as Kendra remembered it or if it was just something she had stretched the truth about. This book does have a few plot twists, and while I did predict one, I found myself guessing incorrectly at the other twists. The author does a fantastic job at typing up any and all loose ends by the end of the book. I must say that I also very much enjoyed the writing and language Erin Bartels used. Her descriptive prose put me right into the heart of the story. I was drawn in with every word, and once I started reading, it was hard for me to stop. Even though this book does deal with some heavy subjects, Bartels did an excellent job at writing about them with much care and sensitivity. (Be sure to read the author's note at the end of the book for a bit more insight into the novel. You won't regret it.)
The characters in The Girl Who Could Breathe Under Water were written very well. I found myself really loving the character of Kendra. She seemed like the type of girl I could relate to and that I'd love to be friends with. I enjoyed getting to see a glimpse into her memories (even the horrible ones). Her back story was interesting with what she had been through. I wish we could have read more about Andreas' back story. He was a strong character, don't get me wrong, but I felt like I didn't really know him all too well. He was always shrouded in a bit of mystery. Tyler's back story was the most interesting (and a little heartbreaking). Even though I never really cared for Tyler as a person, he was still a very well written character. I wish he would have gotten in trouble for what he did, but just as in real life, not everything happens as it should. I also loved the character of Cami. Although she seems a bit selfish, what she had been through makes it a bit easier to see why she was the way she was. I'm not excusing her actions by no means, but I can see the reasoning behind it. I also loved Robert as Kendra's mentor. He was such a laid back and loving character.
Trigger warnings for The Girl Who Could Breathe Under Water include some slight bullying, sexual harassment, molestation, rape (though not graphic), child prostitution, alcohol, mentions of drug use, death, and suicide.
All in all, The Girl Who Could Breathe Under Water is a beautifully written book showing that even in the fact of tragedy and trauma, we can still rise above our circumstances. I would definitely recommend The Girl Who Could Breath Under Water by Erin Bartels to those ages 16+ who are after a book with great emotional depth.
--
(A special thank you to Revell for providing me with a paperback of The Girl Who Could Breathe Under Water by Erin Bartels in exchange for a fair and honest review.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Sinner - Season 1 in TV
Nov 30, 2017 (Updated Nov 30, 2017)
Barely any of the characters were sympathetic or relatable (3 more)
The ending was dissatisfying
So many wasted episodes
It was only 9 episodes long, but it felt far longer
A Sin That This Wasn't Better
This show came highly recommended to me by sources that I usually trust, but it turned out to be a total let down. The show opens with a young family going to the beach. The mother who is played by Jessica Biel, suddenly walks over to another young man on the beach and stabs him to death in front of over a hundred witnesses in broad daylight. She is then arrested and the show spends the next 8 episodes clumsily trying to explain why she committed this heinous act.
I like Jessica Biel, I like Bill Pullman and I like Christopher Abbott, who plays the husband to Biel's Cora Tannetti. I like mysterious shows about crime and murder. I should have loved this, but I thought it was a train wreck from start to finish. During the first episode we see the murder occur in graphic detail, then the next couple of episodes ask why she did what she did and then you start to wonder, "how are they going to manage to drag this out for another six episodes without it getting stale?" The answer is, they aren't and it gets old fast. In this sense, the writing is a mess.
Sometimes though, a show can have messy writing, but be saved by it's cast of characters. However, that is absolutely not the case here. Cora is the main character of the show, so I think we are supposed to feel some sort of connection to her, yet she is so grossly off-putting in every way, I was actually was hoping to see her get the death sentence. At first you see her committing this atrocity, which obviously causes you to take an instant dislike to her, but you expect as the show goes on and we learn more about her, that we will eventually feel sympathetic towards her. In fact, the exact opposite is true, every new facet of information that I learned about her backstory just made me hate her more and at no point did I feel like I was on her side.
There is also a flashback subplot going on, which shows Cora as a suspiciously old looking teenager, as for some reason Jessica Biel is still playing the role of the teenage Cora. Through this we see her family life growing up, but her family are some of the most dislikeable characters I have seen in a TV show in years. Her mother is a religious nut to the point of insanity, her father is sleeping with the next door neighbour and her terminally ill sister is such a little shit that you don't feel any sympathy towards her for her illness and you end up hoping she will die sooner rather than later.
I'll try to discuss the ending without giving away any major spoilers, but for those who haven't yet seen the show, you may want to skip to the final paragraph. At around the episode 5 mark, I was very close to giving up on this show, but I had heard that the ending was amazing, so I stuck with it. What a waste of time that turned out to be. The reveal itself was a huge let down and after everything was revealed, I still felt that the murder victim didn't deserve to die and I thought that Cora pretty much getting away with murder was so dissatisfying and undeserved.
Overall, this show is pretty awful. There are so many plot threads that go nowhere, the writing thinks it is far more clever than it actually is, actors that I normally like are playing entirely dislikeable characters and the whole thing seems far longer than just nine episodes. The ending isn't worth sticking around for and really the show is just tons of wasted potential. Do yourself a favour and give this a skip, there are far better shows available to watch on Netflix.
I like Jessica Biel, I like Bill Pullman and I like Christopher Abbott, who plays the husband to Biel's Cora Tannetti. I like mysterious shows about crime and murder. I should have loved this, but I thought it was a train wreck from start to finish. During the first episode we see the murder occur in graphic detail, then the next couple of episodes ask why she did what she did and then you start to wonder, "how are they going to manage to drag this out for another six episodes without it getting stale?" The answer is, they aren't and it gets old fast. In this sense, the writing is a mess.
Sometimes though, a show can have messy writing, but be saved by it's cast of characters. However, that is absolutely not the case here. Cora is the main character of the show, so I think we are supposed to feel some sort of connection to her, yet she is so grossly off-putting in every way, I was actually was hoping to see her get the death sentence. At first you see her committing this atrocity, which obviously causes you to take an instant dislike to her, but you expect as the show goes on and we learn more about her, that we will eventually feel sympathetic towards her. In fact, the exact opposite is true, every new facet of information that I learned about her backstory just made me hate her more and at no point did I feel like I was on her side.
There is also a flashback subplot going on, which shows Cora as a suspiciously old looking teenager, as for some reason Jessica Biel is still playing the role of the teenage Cora. Through this we see her family life growing up, but her family are some of the most dislikeable characters I have seen in a TV show in years. Her mother is a religious nut to the point of insanity, her father is sleeping with the next door neighbour and her terminally ill sister is such a little shit that you don't feel any sympathy towards her for her illness and you end up hoping she will die sooner rather than later.
I'll try to discuss the ending without giving away any major spoilers, but for those who haven't yet seen the show, you may want to skip to the final paragraph. At around the episode 5 mark, I was very close to giving up on this show, but I had heard that the ending was amazing, so I stuck with it. What a waste of time that turned out to be. The reveal itself was a huge let down and after everything was revealed, I still felt that the murder victim didn't deserve to die and I thought that Cora pretty much getting away with murder was so dissatisfying and undeserved.
Overall, this show is pretty awful. There are so many plot threads that go nowhere, the writing thinks it is far more clever than it actually is, actors that I normally like are playing entirely dislikeable characters and the whole thing seems far longer than just nine episodes. The ending isn't worth sticking around for and really the show is just tons of wasted potential. Do yourself a favour and give this a skip, there are far better shows available to watch on Netflix.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Dead Perfect in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Shannah is going to die. She has a blood disease that none of the doctors can identify, and she only has months to live. She’s on her last month, possibly her last week… she hates to think it’s her last day, but it sure feels like it. She has been watching the strange tall, dark (and hansom) man for several months, and is convinced that he is a vampire (though she’s not exactly sane when she makes that decision). She goes to him seeking immortality, but collapses in near death on his front porch. When she wakes up, she feels better. What did he do that healed her? She’s not a vampire, but even the doctors couldn’t heal her… then there’s the fact that she’s pretty sure that she’s falling in love with him. but Ronan’s healing doesn’t last forever… and Shannah has to make a hard choice.
Ronan is five hundred and thirteen years old. He has never loved anyone in his life, but when Shannah comes to his door he takes her into his house and begins to heal her in his own special way. But then he accidentally falls in love with her. That causes problems—when your mortal soulmate is going to die soon and she isn’t sure she wants to be a leach her whole life. If he changes her against her will, will she hate him forever? Are his only choices letting her die and losing her, or changing her and losing her?
And then there’s that whole problem with a vampire hunter tracking down Ronan… and trying to kill him.
My Thoughts—at first glimpse, this seemed so twilight-ish. But once I started reading it I got out of my vampire stereotype and enjoyed this book quite a lot. I was at the library and dying for a light-hearted vampire romance (because I was just in that mood) so I picked it up. It’s a very quick read, and very sweet.
The Plot—the plot moved quickly, though at one point a thought crossed my mind, “there isn’t much story here, how is the author dragging it out into 345 pages and is still managing to keep it interesting?” although the plot seemed a little simple, it held my attention very well.
The Characters—I loved the characters in this book. Shannah was depicted as a desperate-to-do-anything-to-keep-alive kind of girl, to the point that she was willing to live with a vampire. Ronan had so much passion and love for this poor girl that it made him endearing. I love how he’d always call her “love.” It was so sweet. Jim Hewitt, the hunter, was a character that you just didn’t like one bit—a strong willed jerk who, although he thought he was doing the right thing, even that he was doing it to keep Shannah safe, I didn’t like him and I felt sorry for him. Though, in my opinion, I liked what happened to him at the end ;)
The writing—There were a lot of really good descriptions in this book, I was able to see everything that the author said in beautiful detail. There wasn’t any graphic sex, though there were a few scenes at the end, but it was brief. There were a few re-used phrases in the book though, and that gets annoying. (My sister and I call this the JMG Syndrome, or “Jenny McGrady” syndrome, because of a series we read when we were younger. Jenny was always feeling “like she got slugged in the stomach”. The phrase was used several times in all fifteen books. It got old really fast.) Shannah had many kissed “brushed across her brow” in this book. But besides that, the writing was warm and welcoming.
My Recommendation: I recommend this book to anyone who likes a good paranormal romance, vampires, or just a romance in general. Ages 16+, only because of the frequency of sex at the end of the book (though I will say that the vampire held fast to abstinence, so that was encouraging.) there wasn’t any foul language, and I really liked that! I hate books that have so much language that I feel dirty reading it. But this book was very clean.
~Haleyknitz
Ronan is five hundred and thirteen years old. He has never loved anyone in his life, but when Shannah comes to his door he takes her into his house and begins to heal her in his own special way. But then he accidentally falls in love with her. That causes problems—when your mortal soulmate is going to die soon and she isn’t sure she wants to be a leach her whole life. If he changes her against her will, will she hate him forever? Are his only choices letting her die and losing her, or changing her and losing her?
And then there’s that whole problem with a vampire hunter tracking down Ronan… and trying to kill him.
My Thoughts—at first glimpse, this seemed so twilight-ish. But once I started reading it I got out of my vampire stereotype and enjoyed this book quite a lot. I was at the library and dying for a light-hearted vampire romance (because I was just in that mood) so I picked it up. It’s a very quick read, and very sweet.
The Plot—the plot moved quickly, though at one point a thought crossed my mind, “there isn’t much story here, how is the author dragging it out into 345 pages and is still managing to keep it interesting?” although the plot seemed a little simple, it held my attention very well.
The Characters—I loved the characters in this book. Shannah was depicted as a desperate-to-do-anything-to-keep-alive kind of girl, to the point that she was willing to live with a vampire. Ronan had so much passion and love for this poor girl that it made him endearing. I love how he’d always call her “love.” It was so sweet. Jim Hewitt, the hunter, was a character that you just didn’t like one bit—a strong willed jerk who, although he thought he was doing the right thing, even that he was doing it to keep Shannah safe, I didn’t like him and I felt sorry for him. Though, in my opinion, I liked what happened to him at the end ;)
The writing—There were a lot of really good descriptions in this book, I was able to see everything that the author said in beautiful detail. There wasn’t any graphic sex, though there were a few scenes at the end, but it was brief. There were a few re-used phrases in the book though, and that gets annoying. (My sister and I call this the JMG Syndrome, or “Jenny McGrady” syndrome, because of a series we read when we were younger. Jenny was always feeling “like she got slugged in the stomach”. The phrase was used several times in all fifteen books. It got old really fast.) Shannah had many kissed “brushed across her brow” in this book. But besides that, the writing was warm and welcoming.
My Recommendation: I recommend this book to anyone who likes a good paranormal romance, vampires, or just a romance in general. Ages 16+, only because of the frequency of sex at the end of the book (though I will say that the vampire held fast to abstinence, so that was encouraging.) there wasn’t any foul language, and I really liked that! I hate books that have so much language that I feel dirty reading it. But this book was very clean.
~Haleyknitz
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Never entertaining, frequently repugnant
Director Francis Lawrence and Hollywood sweetheart Jennifer Lawrence (they are no relation, I’ve checked) aren’t a new combination when it comes to film-making.
In fact, Francis Lawrence may have kick-started the world’s love affair with the young actress after he directed her in the best Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire.
They both went on to finish the saga with Mockingjay’s two instalments and the rest as they say, is box office magic.
Here though, they both take on a very different project, aimed at a very different group of movie fans. Red Sparrow is the first hard-hitting thriller of 2018. But is it any different from the plethora of films already out there in the genre?
Prima ballerina Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) faces a bleak and uncertain future after she suffers an injury that ends her career. She soon turns to Sparrow School, a secret intelligence service that trains exceptional young people to use their minds and bodies as weapons. Egorova emerges as the most dangerous Sparrow after completing the sadistic training process. As she comes to terms with her new abilities, Dominika meets Joel Edgerton’s CIA agent Nate Nash (yes really) who tries to convince her that he is the only person she can trust.
The film starts off very promisingly as the audience are treated to a beautifully choreographed opening that follows Lawrence at the height of her dancing fame and Edgerton as he goes about an assignment. Both characters don’t intertwine at this point, and as the music builds to a crescendo we realise both their nights are about to go very wrong. It’s nicely filmed, if a little Black Swan–esque. Unfortunately, this impressive crescendo signals something else, the start of a downhill slope for Red Sparrow.
For a film marketed as a classy, adults-only thriller, Red Sparrow has very little in the way of class, despite the inclusion of Jennifer Lawrence. Her acting, as usual is sublime, minus her at times dreadful Russian accent and the rest of the cast do their best with Edgerton coming across well, but the rest of the film is just such a mess. Jeremy Irons feels incredibly miscast as a Russian General and the script by Justin Haythe is borderline incomprehensible.
The overuse of graphic violence and sex really does it no favours. There’s only so many times you can watch Lawrence be raped without wondering what the hell the film-makers thought they were doing and one (thankfully consensual) sex scene will have your eyes rolling in the back of your head: not out of pleasure, but out of absurdity.
It really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place?
Then there’s the action, or lack thereof. Where films like Atomic Blonde stylised the violence and the action to create a particular aesthetic, Red Sparrow just doesn’t. The limited amount of action that is presented to the audience is lazily filmed and worlds apart from director Francis Lawrence’s excellent work on the Hunger Games series.
Sure, the sets are lavish and the globetrotting that Lawrence gets to do is pleasant enough, but we’ve seen it all before and done much, much better. The production has a very staid quality that isn’t befitting of its director and its leading lady.
The final act twists that piece together everything that has come before is 30 minutes too late. At 140 minutes long, Red Sparrow is an absolute behemoth of a film but there is no reason whatsoever for it to be this long. Had it been thrilling and entertaining it could have gotten away with it – unfortunately it drags continuously from beginning to end.
Overall, Red Sparrow is a real dud that even the talents of Jennifer Lawrence can’t save. Not only is it never entertaining and frequently repugnant, it really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place? If it’s to escape her Katniss Everdeen persona she’s succeeded, but this could make movie studios think twice about casting her in projects in the future.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/07/red-sparrow-review-never-entertaining-frequently-repugnant/
In fact, Francis Lawrence may have kick-started the world’s love affair with the young actress after he directed her in the best Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire.
They both went on to finish the saga with Mockingjay’s two instalments and the rest as they say, is box office magic.
Here though, they both take on a very different project, aimed at a very different group of movie fans. Red Sparrow is the first hard-hitting thriller of 2018. But is it any different from the plethora of films already out there in the genre?
Prima ballerina Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) faces a bleak and uncertain future after she suffers an injury that ends her career. She soon turns to Sparrow School, a secret intelligence service that trains exceptional young people to use their minds and bodies as weapons. Egorova emerges as the most dangerous Sparrow after completing the sadistic training process. As she comes to terms with her new abilities, Dominika meets Joel Edgerton’s CIA agent Nate Nash (yes really) who tries to convince her that he is the only person she can trust.
The film starts off very promisingly as the audience are treated to a beautifully choreographed opening that follows Lawrence at the height of her dancing fame and Edgerton as he goes about an assignment. Both characters don’t intertwine at this point, and as the music builds to a crescendo we realise both their nights are about to go very wrong. It’s nicely filmed, if a little Black Swan–esque. Unfortunately, this impressive crescendo signals something else, the start of a downhill slope for Red Sparrow.
For a film marketed as a classy, adults-only thriller, Red Sparrow has very little in the way of class, despite the inclusion of Jennifer Lawrence. Her acting, as usual is sublime, minus her at times dreadful Russian accent and the rest of the cast do their best with Edgerton coming across well, but the rest of the film is just such a mess. Jeremy Irons feels incredibly miscast as a Russian General and the script by Justin Haythe is borderline incomprehensible.
The overuse of graphic violence and sex really does it no favours. There’s only so many times you can watch Lawrence be raped without wondering what the hell the film-makers thought they were doing and one (thankfully consensual) sex scene will have your eyes rolling in the back of your head: not out of pleasure, but out of absurdity.
It really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place?
Then there’s the action, or lack thereof. Where films like Atomic Blonde stylised the violence and the action to create a particular aesthetic, Red Sparrow just doesn’t. The limited amount of action that is presented to the audience is lazily filmed and worlds apart from director Francis Lawrence’s excellent work on the Hunger Games series.
Sure, the sets are lavish and the globetrotting that Lawrence gets to do is pleasant enough, but we’ve seen it all before and done much, much better. The production has a very staid quality that isn’t befitting of its director and its leading lady.
The final act twists that piece together everything that has come before is 30 minutes too late. At 140 minutes long, Red Sparrow is an absolute behemoth of a film but there is no reason whatsoever for it to be this long. Had it been thrilling and entertaining it could have gotten away with it – unfortunately it drags continuously from beginning to end.
Overall, Red Sparrow is a real dud that even the talents of Jennifer Lawrence can’t save. Not only is it never entertaining and frequently repugnant, it really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place? If it’s to escape her Katniss Everdeen persona she’s succeeded, but this could make movie studios think twice about casting her in projects in the future.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/07/red-sparrow-review-never-entertaining-frequently-repugnant/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated We Are the Goldens in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
There was something about this book that intrigued me. Maybe it was the forbidden romance between a student and her teacher. I decided to give this book a try. Although it wasn't as great as I thought it would be, it was still an alright read.
I love the title, and I feel that it fits in really well with the book. These two sisters have always had each other's back and have done nearly everything together.
The cover is okay. I think it looks a bit too cavemanish though instead of two beautiful girls as what is described in the book. Maybe if both girls were looking up and the lighting was different, the cover photo wouldn't look like I was looking at two cavemen.
I enjoyed the world building. We learn about the world through Nell's letters to her sister Layla. (At least it sounded like she was writing a letter(s) to her sister. The author made it easy to understand Nell's and Layla's relationship from the beginning through her fantastic prose.
I thought the pacing held up rather well. There were times when I thought I'd be able to put the book down so I could go to bed or do something else, but I'd always end up reading a few more chapters. It thoroughly held my attention. Plus, I enjoyed the back story leading up to everything immensely.
The plot of the whole teacher-student relationship has been done before. However, Reinhardt makes her story interesting and unlike the other stories. I liked the close relationship that Nell and Layla used to have before Layla started dating her teacher. I was saddened to see it start to unravel over a forbidden romance. There's no plot twists that I read about, but that doesn't hurt the book any. The only thing that annoyed me was the ending. I would've liked to know a bit more such as what happened to Mr. Barr and Layla. That's all I'm saying because I don't want to give away anything that could be deemed as a spoiler.
Nell was instantly likable. There was a certain innocence and vulnerability with her. It was easy to empathize with what she was going through, and I felt like her struggle with keeping her sister's secret was my own as well. I also thought Layla was a fantastic character as well. We get to know her through Nell's letters, and we learn that she too is also very vulnerable and just wants to find her one true love. I loved the character of Felix except that I had a hard time believing that he was into girls as it said in the book. I found his speech to be very effeminate. He reminded me of Damian from the film Mean Girls. Every time Felix was in a scene, I always was picturing Damian. We don't really learn too much about Mr. Barr (the teacher in a relationship with Layla) other that his students all think he's the coolest teacher and the best looking. We also learn that there's rumors about him being with other students previously.
The dialogue flows very smoothly and is never awkward. The speech fits my perception of how teenagers speak. It suits a young adult book. There is some swearing and some sexual references although none that are graphic. There is no violence in this book.
Overall, We Are the Goldens by Dana Reinhardt is an enjoyable read save for the ending. The characters are well written as is the whole entire book. This book deals with subject matter that happens at every school.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who enjoy realistic fiction and characters that are easy to relate to.
<b>I'd give We Are the Goldens by Dana Reinhardt a 3.5 out of 5.</b>
(I was provided with a free ebook of this title from the publisher through NetGalley in exchange for an honest and unbiased review).
There was something about this book that intrigued me. Maybe it was the forbidden romance between a student and her teacher. I decided to give this book a try. Although it wasn't as great as I thought it would be, it was still an alright read.
I love the title, and I feel that it fits in really well with the book. These two sisters have always had each other's back and have done nearly everything together.
The cover is okay. I think it looks a bit too cavemanish though instead of two beautiful girls as what is described in the book. Maybe if both girls were looking up and the lighting was different, the cover photo wouldn't look like I was looking at two cavemen.
I enjoyed the world building. We learn about the world through Nell's letters to her sister Layla. (At least it sounded like she was writing a letter(s) to her sister. The author made it easy to understand Nell's and Layla's relationship from the beginning through her fantastic prose.
I thought the pacing held up rather well. There were times when I thought I'd be able to put the book down so I could go to bed or do something else, but I'd always end up reading a few more chapters. It thoroughly held my attention. Plus, I enjoyed the back story leading up to everything immensely.
The plot of the whole teacher-student relationship has been done before. However, Reinhardt makes her story interesting and unlike the other stories. I liked the close relationship that Nell and Layla used to have before Layla started dating her teacher. I was saddened to see it start to unravel over a forbidden romance. There's no plot twists that I read about, but that doesn't hurt the book any. The only thing that annoyed me was the ending. I would've liked to know a bit more such as what happened to Mr. Barr and Layla. That's all I'm saying because I don't want to give away anything that could be deemed as a spoiler.
Nell was instantly likable. There was a certain innocence and vulnerability with her. It was easy to empathize with what she was going through, and I felt like her struggle with keeping her sister's secret was my own as well. I also thought Layla was a fantastic character as well. We get to know her through Nell's letters, and we learn that she too is also very vulnerable and just wants to find her one true love. I loved the character of Felix except that I had a hard time believing that he was into girls as it said in the book. I found his speech to be very effeminate. He reminded me of Damian from the film Mean Girls. Every time Felix was in a scene, I always was picturing Damian. We don't really learn too much about Mr. Barr (the teacher in a relationship with Layla) other that his students all think he's the coolest teacher and the best looking. We also learn that there's rumors about him being with other students previously.
The dialogue flows very smoothly and is never awkward. The speech fits my perception of how teenagers speak. It suits a young adult book. There is some swearing and some sexual references although none that are graphic. There is no violence in this book.
Overall, We Are the Goldens by Dana Reinhardt is an enjoyable read save for the ending. The characters are well written as is the whole entire book. This book deals with subject matter that happens at every school.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who enjoy realistic fiction and characters that are easy to relate to.
<b>I'd give We Are the Goldens by Dana Reinhardt a 3.5 out of 5.</b>
(I was provided with a free ebook of this title from the publisher through NetGalley in exchange for an honest and unbiased review).
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Savage in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
When I read the blurb for this novella, I was a little bit interested especially when it came to the mysterious village. The whole creature thing isn't usually what I read when it comes to the horror genre, but as this was a short read, I thought I'd give it a try. However, it wasn't something I can say I enjoyed.
I don't really like or dislike the title. It's a bit plain and boring, and I don't really see what it has to do with the book unless it pertains to what the villagers call the undisciplined. No mention of the word savage was ever used.
The cover of this book reminds me of a book from the time of Alfred Hitchcock. I believe that the cover does suit the book.
The world building starts off being believable. It was quite easy to picture a man driving along a country road, his car dying, and then he mysteriously gets transported to a strange village. However, the author starts talking about angles and shapes, and I just found myself being really confused. I wouldn't say this made the world building any less believable but just confusing, at least for me.
I thought the pacing to be a bit too slow for my liking. There's not really any action until almost the very end of the book. Luckily this book is short or else I would've quit reading it before I was finished.
The plot is interesting enough. A man's car breaks down just outside some strange village. The man goes into the village and notices how perfectly angular the people and the landscape is. The villagers start talking about the undisciplined. The man ends up getting locked up but manages to escape. However, he runs into something a lot worse than the strange villagers. So yes, the plot line was interesting enough, but I just felt it was executed a bit poorly. I felt as if the ending didn't tie in with the whole book. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but I will say that if the author was going for that ending, maybe he should've rethought about whether or not to have a mysterious village in the book as the village and the ending don't really mesh well.
I did like Daryl. He seemed like your everyday, normal working man. However, I think he was a bit too intellectual for me to fully relate to. As for the villagers, I can't really comment on them because I felt like there wasn't enough back story on the village and its people to fully form an opinion. I would've liked more back story on the village, and I feel that with more back story, the book would've been less confusing and more interesting.
There wasn't much dialogue in the book which I found disappointing. It seemed like all that was in the book was adjectives and too much description for my liking. Not only that, but I felt that the words used were too intellectual for a common reader such as myself. A lot of the time I didn't even know what the words meant, and this lead to a lot of confusion and lack of interest for me. It's just too wordy of a book if that makes sense. There are a few swear words and a tiny bit of violence. There is also a little bit of sexual references but only in one or two scenes, and it's not very graphic.
Overall, Savage by Gary Fry has a promising story line, but with all the big words, too much description and not enough dialogue, it just falls flat. It doesn't help that the mysterious village has no back story and that the ending doesn't really mesh with the rest of the story.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend this book unless you know words that aren't used in every day conversations or if you're an English major. I'd say this book is written for those 18+.
<b>I'd give Savage by Gary Fry a 2 out of 5.</b>
(I received a free ecopy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley for an honest and unbiased review).
When I read the blurb for this novella, I was a little bit interested especially when it came to the mysterious village. The whole creature thing isn't usually what I read when it comes to the horror genre, but as this was a short read, I thought I'd give it a try. However, it wasn't something I can say I enjoyed.
I don't really like or dislike the title. It's a bit plain and boring, and I don't really see what it has to do with the book unless it pertains to what the villagers call the undisciplined. No mention of the word savage was ever used.
The cover of this book reminds me of a book from the time of Alfred Hitchcock. I believe that the cover does suit the book.
The world building starts off being believable. It was quite easy to picture a man driving along a country road, his car dying, and then he mysteriously gets transported to a strange village. However, the author starts talking about angles and shapes, and I just found myself being really confused. I wouldn't say this made the world building any less believable but just confusing, at least for me.
I thought the pacing to be a bit too slow for my liking. There's not really any action until almost the very end of the book. Luckily this book is short or else I would've quit reading it before I was finished.
The plot is interesting enough. A man's car breaks down just outside some strange village. The man goes into the village and notices how perfectly angular the people and the landscape is. The villagers start talking about the undisciplined. The man ends up getting locked up but manages to escape. However, he runs into something a lot worse than the strange villagers. So yes, the plot line was interesting enough, but I just felt it was executed a bit poorly. I felt as if the ending didn't tie in with the whole book. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but I will say that if the author was going for that ending, maybe he should've rethought about whether or not to have a mysterious village in the book as the village and the ending don't really mesh well.
I did like Daryl. He seemed like your everyday, normal working man. However, I think he was a bit too intellectual for me to fully relate to. As for the villagers, I can't really comment on them because I felt like there wasn't enough back story on the village and its people to fully form an opinion. I would've liked more back story on the village, and I feel that with more back story, the book would've been less confusing and more interesting.
There wasn't much dialogue in the book which I found disappointing. It seemed like all that was in the book was adjectives and too much description for my liking. Not only that, but I felt that the words used were too intellectual for a common reader such as myself. A lot of the time I didn't even know what the words meant, and this lead to a lot of confusion and lack of interest for me. It's just too wordy of a book if that makes sense. There are a few swear words and a tiny bit of violence. There is also a little bit of sexual references but only in one or two scenes, and it's not very graphic.
Overall, Savage by Gary Fry has a promising story line, but with all the big words, too much description and not enough dialogue, it just falls flat. It doesn't help that the mysterious village has no back story and that the ending doesn't really mesh with the rest of the story.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend this book unless you know words that aren't used in every day conversations or if you're an English major. I'd say this book is written for those 18+.
<b>I'd give Savage by Gary Fry a 2 out of 5.</b>
(I received a free ecopy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley for an honest and unbiased review).