Search
Search results
London Map and Walks, Full Version
Travel and Navigation
App
Lose Yourself Without Getting Lost. This handy application presents you several self-guided city...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Churchill (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We will bore them on the beaches”.
“Churchill” tells the story of the great leader’s extreme opposition to “Operation Overlord”, the Eisenhower-led invasion of Normandy in 1944 that ultimately led – more by luck that judgement perhaps – to the fall of the Third Reich in the following year.
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Well where do I start? I love the fact that there is no substantial synopsis for this film, a lot have just gone with "the ongoing adventures of Newt Scamander" or similarly vague offerings.
It's difficult to separate them from their Harry Potter ancestry. They are of course the same universe. If you can sever the links then the films aren't too bad, but they're not amazing either. The other issue is that with the links you're obviously given lots of issues with continuity and timelines.
After only given a brief sighting of Grindelwald in the first film we're sold a creepy and scary version in this one very early on. His suspension during the transfer to the coach gives him the sinister grace of a dementor. This leads to the first of two problems for me. Abernathy in this whole introductory section is odd and you can tell something is up, so when we're eventually presented with that was happening it wasn't a surprise.
Here's problem two. Once Grindelwald is secured in the coach the rest of the sequence takes place outside, in the dark, in a storm. Very atmospheric with striking shots... most of which you can't see because of the lightning and rain. Everything is so fast that it's just a blur. It seems to be a popular occurrence recently and I will never understand why you would spend so much money on them when you can't see what's happening. One of the bits that you can see properly is the ghostly face of Grindelwald appearing in the coach window... which is a shame because it felt like it was awfully done and could have used some covering up.
As a quick note while I remember, I would like to acknowledge the impressive advances in wizarding technology. Early roombas and Fitbits. Great job!
Looking back over the notes most of them were about characters. Barely any about storyline. Just one thing that seemed completely out of place/inaccurate, and that was Minerva McGonagall. I'm not well enough versed in Harry Potter history but looking at the chatter I don't think her timeline matches with that of the film... but I'll leave that to the super nerds. If it is inaccurate it would have been very easy to avoid so it seems ridiculous to have had in at all.
The fluffy, feathered and scaly friends also need an honourable mention. *gets out soap box and steps up* Nifflers rule. I will fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Although, bad film! Getting my hopes up and then dashing them. You give them leeway with the animation considering they're fantastic beasts, but the only creatures that don't really have a decent presence on screen are the matagots that protect the Ministry of Magic. Even as hairless catlike creatures you'd expect something a little more impressive than what feels like CGI with a layer of detail missing.
I'm also intrigued by the phoenix. Is it Fawkes? How did Albus get his? Of course I could have missed things that answer all of the questions I have about it.
After reviewing all my notes I can (un)happily say that almost all of the women come off quite badly in this film. Bunty, Newt's assistant (I hope that was her name, she was fairly forgetable other than this point), came over as a little creepy with her comments that clearly show her affections for him. Queenie has a bit of a transformation in this one. She's still got her optimistic outlook but she's devolving a bit. Tina is taken by jealousy, which seems a little off for her. The newest addition of Nagini came out relatively unscathed and I'm hoping for an intriguing ongoing story for her.
The male characters came off slightly better. Jacob and Flamel were some welcome relief from this bleak installment of the franchise. Hats off to Callum Turner and Joshua Shea though. They both managed to pick up the Newt mannerisms really well. I can appreciate it even though it's one of the things I dislike about Fantastic Beasts, the constant head tilting.
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore still doesn't sit quite right, but he made a reasonable job of it. He doesn't quite hold the same presence in the scenes as you'd expect him to for the man he becomes though. Everyone also got into a tizzy about his sexuality. Who cares? Whether he is or isn't gay makes no difference to the movie whatsoever. Just enjoy a film a don't worry about it until it's relevant.
It really is difficult to sum the story line up for this one. There's a reason that everyone has generalised the synopsis. It's just a lot of nothing in particular. It's part two of five. There didn't really seem to be a lot apart from filler. What I can tell you is that the first time I saw this (I went to the midnight screening at Vue originally) I fell asleep through a significant chunk in the middle and yet I still came out with the same understanding and enjoyment as I did after the second time.
What you should do
You're going to have to see it at some point if you're into the HP universe. Just a statement of fact there!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That magic spell for collapsing all my belongings into a couple of trunks, I'm assuming it would come in handy for cleaning as well.
It's difficult to separate them from their Harry Potter ancestry. They are of course the same universe. If you can sever the links then the films aren't too bad, but they're not amazing either. The other issue is that with the links you're obviously given lots of issues with continuity and timelines.
After only given a brief sighting of Grindelwald in the first film we're sold a creepy and scary version in this one very early on. His suspension during the transfer to the coach gives him the sinister grace of a dementor. This leads to the first of two problems for me. Abernathy in this whole introductory section is odd and you can tell something is up, so when we're eventually presented with that was happening it wasn't a surprise.
Here's problem two. Once Grindelwald is secured in the coach the rest of the sequence takes place outside, in the dark, in a storm. Very atmospheric with striking shots... most of which you can't see because of the lightning and rain. Everything is so fast that it's just a blur. It seems to be a popular occurrence recently and I will never understand why you would spend so much money on them when you can't see what's happening. One of the bits that you can see properly is the ghostly face of Grindelwald appearing in the coach window... which is a shame because it felt like it was awfully done and could have used some covering up.
As a quick note while I remember, I would like to acknowledge the impressive advances in wizarding technology. Early roombas and Fitbits. Great job!
Looking back over the notes most of them were about characters. Barely any about storyline. Just one thing that seemed completely out of place/inaccurate, and that was Minerva McGonagall. I'm not well enough versed in Harry Potter history but looking at the chatter I don't think her timeline matches with that of the film... but I'll leave that to the super nerds. If it is inaccurate it would have been very easy to avoid so it seems ridiculous to have had in at all.
The fluffy, feathered and scaly friends also need an honourable mention. *gets out soap box and steps up* Nifflers rule. I will fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Although, bad film! Getting my hopes up and then dashing them. You give them leeway with the animation considering they're fantastic beasts, but the only creatures that don't really have a decent presence on screen are the matagots that protect the Ministry of Magic. Even as hairless catlike creatures you'd expect something a little more impressive than what feels like CGI with a layer of detail missing.
I'm also intrigued by the phoenix. Is it Fawkes? How did Albus get his? Of course I could have missed things that answer all of the questions I have about it.
After reviewing all my notes I can (un)happily say that almost all of the women come off quite badly in this film. Bunty, Newt's assistant (I hope that was her name, she was fairly forgetable other than this point), came over as a little creepy with her comments that clearly show her affections for him. Queenie has a bit of a transformation in this one. She's still got her optimistic outlook but she's devolving a bit. Tina is taken by jealousy, which seems a little off for her. The newest addition of Nagini came out relatively unscathed and I'm hoping for an intriguing ongoing story for her.
The male characters came off slightly better. Jacob and Flamel were some welcome relief from this bleak installment of the franchise. Hats off to Callum Turner and Joshua Shea though. They both managed to pick up the Newt mannerisms really well. I can appreciate it even though it's one of the things I dislike about Fantastic Beasts, the constant head tilting.
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore still doesn't sit quite right, but he made a reasonable job of it. He doesn't quite hold the same presence in the scenes as you'd expect him to for the man he becomes though. Everyone also got into a tizzy about his sexuality. Who cares? Whether he is or isn't gay makes no difference to the movie whatsoever. Just enjoy a film a don't worry about it until it's relevant.
It really is difficult to sum the story line up for this one. There's a reason that everyone has generalised the synopsis. It's just a lot of nothing in particular. It's part two of five. There didn't really seem to be a lot apart from filler. What I can tell you is that the first time I saw this (I went to the midnight screening at Vue originally) I fell asleep through a significant chunk in the middle and yet I still came out with the same understanding and enjoyment as I did after the second time.
What you should do
You're going to have to see it at some point if you're into the HP universe. Just a statement of fact there!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That magic spell for collapsing all my belongings into a couple of trunks, I'm assuming it would come in handy for cleaning as well.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Wings (Wings, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
This book had some good, some bad, some supremacy, some mediocrity. here's my warning now, that this has spoilers in it.
good: a wild twist. the idea that fairy's are plants never once crossed my mind, the idea that Laurel had flowers growing out of her back instead of actual wings was... kinda weird but also really cool. and in my opinion, the good over-weighed the bad.
bad: i remember very vividly that the boy she falls in love with is introduced in the first paragraph (or second, or something like that.) and that totally gave away that part of the plot. i knew right away she'd become involved with him. i would have liked the author to develop his character a little more, or develop Laurel's character a little more, before introducing him.
supremacy: it had me hooked from about the fifth chapter to the twenty-second. i literally read for five hours. that's a long time for me. i mean, i read A LOT and ALL THE TIME, but five hours at once? seriously. the only other times that's ever happened was for twilight and harry potter. very nice, Aprilynne.
mediocrity: the writing itself, the prose, the sentence structure, was not all that fabulous. it was just basic sentence structure most of the time, and ok vocabulary. the words themselves were not poetic and artful, something that you find in Edger Allen Poe or J K Rowling.
the last thing was the end. it left you hanging, a little. which, as a writer, is a smart and mean thing to do at the same time. i'm a writer, and in every single one of my books i leave my audience hanging. but as a reader, it's annoying. i the one thing i want to know is what happens about her and the boy thing? who does she end up with? i'll bet that the boy she met at school ends up with the girl who's had a crush on him forever, and she goes back to her fairy-boy. (can you tell i've forgotten some names and don't have the book with me?) whatever. but i hope there's a second one, because that one little thing will bug me from now until whenever the new one comes out (if there is one.)
of course, again, the book was addictive, and had a great twist. i will say that if i ever had a chance to read it again, i would probably not do it. but i will (if there is one) read the sequel. all in all, i did like this book. quite a lot. and i do recommend it to anyone who likes romance, fantasy, or adventure.
good: a wild twist. the idea that fairy's are plants never once crossed my mind, the idea that Laurel had flowers growing out of her back instead of actual wings was... kinda weird but also really cool. and in my opinion, the good over-weighed the bad.
bad: i remember very vividly that the boy she falls in love with is introduced in the first paragraph (or second, or something like that.) and that totally gave away that part of the plot. i knew right away she'd become involved with him. i would have liked the author to develop his character a little more, or develop Laurel's character a little more, before introducing him.
supremacy: it had me hooked from about the fifth chapter to the twenty-second. i literally read for five hours. that's a long time for me. i mean, i read A LOT and ALL THE TIME, but five hours at once? seriously. the only other times that's ever happened was for twilight and harry potter. very nice, Aprilynne.
mediocrity: the writing itself, the prose, the sentence structure, was not all that fabulous. it was just basic sentence structure most of the time, and ok vocabulary. the words themselves were not poetic and artful, something that you find in Edger Allen Poe or J K Rowling.
the last thing was the end. it left you hanging, a little. which, as a writer, is a smart and mean thing to do at the same time. i'm a writer, and in every single one of my books i leave my audience hanging. but as a reader, it's annoying. i the one thing i want to know is what happens about her and the boy thing? who does she end up with? i'll bet that the boy she met at school ends up with the girl who's had a crush on him forever, and she goes back to her fairy-boy. (can you tell i've forgotten some names and don't have the book with me?) whatever. but i hope there's a second one, because that one little thing will bug me from now until whenever the new one comes out (if there is one.)
of course, again, the book was addictive, and had a great twist. i will say that if i ever had a chance to read it again, i would probably not do it. but i will (if there is one) read the sequel. all in all, i did like this book. quite a lot. and i do recommend it to anyone who likes romance, fantasy, or adventure.
FilmIntuition (33 KP) rated Picture Us In The Light in Books
May 23, 2018
A Book of the Heart
While many novelists refer to their latest works as “the book of my heart,” in the case of young adult author Kelly Loy Gilbert’s finely crafted, humanistic new effort Picture Us In the Light, that description is entirely justified.
Sensitively penned within the immediately convincing first person point-of-view of our main character, high school senior and aspiring artist Danny Cheng, the author pulls us into Picture’s picturesque world within the very first chapter.
After stumbling upon a mysterious box of his father's and going through it with gusto, Danny begins to wonder just how much his loving but secretive parents have been keeping from him.
Unable to come of age until he can come to terms with unexplained gaps and tragedies in his past, he enlists the help of his two best friends - only to discover that he can’t examine the lives of those closest to him without doing the same himself.
Balancing wry observations and deft characterizations with heavy subject matter, Loy Gilbert foreshadows big twists to come as we move further into the novel. And although it begins with a steady climb, Picture slows down just long enough to ensure that we feel as connected to the characters as they are to each other.
Now sure she’s got you, the author returns to full speed - moving like a bullet train from roughly the hundred page mark all the way through to its bittersweet but very satisfying final chapter.
Written during the tumultuous 2016 election and revised afterward, Loy Gilbert is right on YouTube when she acknowledges the vital role that stories play in this post election world where “facts don't matter,” due to fiction’s empathetic ability to introduce us to people, places, and plights we might not encounter otherwise.
Filled with so much internal and external dramatic mystery that in less gifted hands, Picture could’ve easily resulted in a messy collision of conflicts, although there are a few revelations about both the plot and our protagonist that we’re able to deduce long before he does, the author wraps things up artfully.
Dropping hints and red herrings into sentences and passages so gorgeous that I found myself making multiple notes throughout, Kelly Loy Gilbert never once lets us feel as though she’s taking a shortcut on her way to the book’s resolution.
Relatively new to twenty-first century post-Harry Potter young adult fiction, if I had not received this stunning Picture through the Bookish First raffle, I would’ve completely missed what’s since become one of the best novels I’ve read so far this year.
To put it another way, it’s a book of the heart indeed.
Sensitively penned within the immediately convincing first person point-of-view of our main character, high school senior and aspiring artist Danny Cheng, the author pulls us into Picture’s picturesque world within the very first chapter.
After stumbling upon a mysterious box of his father's and going through it with gusto, Danny begins to wonder just how much his loving but secretive parents have been keeping from him.
Unable to come of age until he can come to terms with unexplained gaps and tragedies in his past, he enlists the help of his two best friends - only to discover that he can’t examine the lives of those closest to him without doing the same himself.
Balancing wry observations and deft characterizations with heavy subject matter, Loy Gilbert foreshadows big twists to come as we move further into the novel. And although it begins with a steady climb, Picture slows down just long enough to ensure that we feel as connected to the characters as they are to each other.
Now sure she’s got you, the author returns to full speed - moving like a bullet train from roughly the hundred page mark all the way through to its bittersweet but very satisfying final chapter.
Written during the tumultuous 2016 election and revised afterward, Loy Gilbert is right on YouTube when she acknowledges the vital role that stories play in this post election world where “facts don't matter,” due to fiction’s empathetic ability to introduce us to people, places, and plights we might not encounter otherwise.
Filled with so much internal and external dramatic mystery that in less gifted hands, Picture could’ve easily resulted in a messy collision of conflicts, although there are a few revelations about both the plot and our protagonist that we’re able to deduce long before he does, the author wraps things up artfully.
Dropping hints and red herrings into sentences and passages so gorgeous that I found myself making multiple notes throughout, Kelly Loy Gilbert never once lets us feel as though she’s taking a shortcut on her way to the book’s resolution.
Relatively new to twenty-first century post-Harry Potter young adult fiction, if I had not received this stunning Picture through the Bookish First raffle, I would’ve completely missed what’s since become one of the best novels I’ve read so far this year.
To put it another way, it’s a book of the heart indeed.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Goonies (1985) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Classic
Contains spoilers, click to show
I first watched this seminal 80's classic in 1988, when it first appeared on TV and I was blown away by it. I was 10, roughly the same age as the lads and here was a film with a raucous sense of humour, strong child characters and large-scale plot which has made this film a multi-generational classic, with our parents, us as parents and our children all investing in the spirit of adventure of The Goonies.
Named after the Goon Docks of which they inhabit, a group of kids, after finding a treasure map, decide that this is their last chance to save the town, which is to knocked down in favour of a Country Club. This leads them on an adventure through the booby-trapped underground catacombs of the town, as they follow the map to One Eyed Willie's treasure.
They get mixed up with the Fratelli's, a matriarchal crime family who get wind of the treasure and follows them into the caves.
The first ting that struck me about this, is after all these years what that it was still fun, enjoyable and even though I might not bother watching by myself, I would defiantly enjoy seeing again with the right audience. The raucous nature of a group of children together in a room is captured so expertly here, with a young Sean Austin, now famous for his portrayal of Samwise Gamgee in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, holding the pack together; but the chaos is portrayed perfectly.
The language is good here too, with casual swearing amongst the kids, meaning that this must be one of the rare family films to truly capture the interplay between tweenage and teenage kids. Overall, this is a classic for all the right reasons, with the story by Steven Spielberg with only goes to further reinforce his status as one of Hollywood's greatest visionaries and a sharp, tight screenplay by Chris Columbus, who penned Gremlins the previous year and went on to direct the first two, but the weakest two Harry Potter movies.
There is also the questionable issue of the way that the Fratelli's treat Chunk. When you think about it he is threatened with torture after being kidnapped and spending time with the murdered corpse of two 'Feds' who have been shot in the head, murdered in cold blood.
I love this, treating the horror in a mature way, allowing it to used as humour but in a way to playfully scare kids, which it does. It is fun, but I do wonder where the PC brigade would let some of these plot points go in to a child friendly romp in 2011? I hope so, as it is the combination of elements that made this film what it is today.
Named after the Goon Docks of which they inhabit, a group of kids, after finding a treasure map, decide that this is their last chance to save the town, which is to knocked down in favour of a Country Club. This leads them on an adventure through the booby-trapped underground catacombs of the town, as they follow the map to One Eyed Willie's treasure.
They get mixed up with the Fratelli's, a matriarchal crime family who get wind of the treasure and follows them into the caves.
The first ting that struck me about this, is after all these years what that it was still fun, enjoyable and even though I might not bother watching by myself, I would defiantly enjoy seeing again with the right audience. The raucous nature of a group of children together in a room is captured so expertly here, with a young Sean Austin, now famous for his portrayal of Samwise Gamgee in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, holding the pack together; but the chaos is portrayed perfectly.
The language is good here too, with casual swearing amongst the kids, meaning that this must be one of the rare family films to truly capture the interplay between tweenage and teenage kids. Overall, this is a classic for all the right reasons, with the story by Steven Spielberg with only goes to further reinforce his status as one of Hollywood's greatest visionaries and a sharp, tight screenplay by Chris Columbus, who penned Gremlins the previous year and went on to direct the first two, but the weakest two Harry Potter movies.
There is also the questionable issue of the way that the Fratelli's treat Chunk. When you think about it he is threatened with torture after being kidnapped and spending time with the murdered corpse of two 'Feds' who have been shot in the head, murdered in cold blood.
I love this, treating the horror in a mature way, allowing it to used as humour but in a way to playfully scare kids, which it does. It is fun, but I do wonder where the PC brigade would let some of these plot points go in to a child friendly romp in 2011? I hope so, as it is the combination of elements that made this film what it is today.
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Diary: Book One of Cursed in Books
Mar 25, 2019
So this is a first in an upcoming series. Reading it kind of gave me a Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets vibe - that's my favorite book in the series by the way. Anyway, two girls named Ana and Sophie come across a new shop that has opened. It sells crystals, some dresses, and spell books. Ana comes across this blank book, a diary, and decides to purchase it and record everything going on in her life - like most teenage girls want to do. I certainly did, and I still do to an extent.
It seems like everything Ana writes in this diary seems to come true - for instance, wanting her friend to finally stop whining about a boy she likes and asks him out. It's pointed out quite a few times how 'out of character' it was for Sophie to ask a boy out. She describes it as an out of body experience where she was watching herself just simply go up to the the boy and ask him on a date.
In a sense of 'be careful what you wish for' in this case it's, 'be careful what you write.' The diary, however, has a mind of its own and it slowly starts to take over Ana.
Does anybody else hear Smeegal's voice and wishing that Ana would once say, 'My Precious!'? No? Okay, I'm really that nerdy, but I don't care. I wear it like a badge of honor.
I won't lie it say it wasn't a tad but cheesy. Almost like watching some parts of it as a Disney show, at least the ones that include someone falling from a Ferris wheel or getting an allergic reaction. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, because it's not overpowering like the new Disney shows these days are, gag me.
The writing style was simplistic and it's one that I liked. It wasn't told from Ana's point of view, which is surprising because most of the YA novels I've read are told from the main character's point of view. It's not a terrible thing, but it's not always the best. In this book, you get more than just Ana's views which is important to a story like this.
The ending did, of course, leave a cliffhanger and a small excerpt for the next book in the series.
All in all, the book was a quick read for the most part. I like the three main characters of the story and I enjoyed how it was written. Can you imagine finding a diary and it making things you write in it come true? The good will come with bad.
It seems like everything Ana writes in this diary seems to come true - for instance, wanting her friend to finally stop whining about a boy she likes and asks him out. It's pointed out quite a few times how 'out of character' it was for Sophie to ask a boy out. She describes it as an out of body experience where she was watching herself just simply go up to the the boy and ask him on a date.
In a sense of 'be careful what you wish for' in this case it's, 'be careful what you write.' The diary, however, has a mind of its own and it slowly starts to take over Ana.
Does anybody else hear Smeegal's voice and wishing that Ana would once say, 'My Precious!'? No? Okay, I'm really that nerdy, but I don't care. I wear it like a badge of honor.
I won't lie it say it wasn't a tad but cheesy. Almost like watching some parts of it as a Disney show, at least the ones that include someone falling from a Ferris wheel or getting an allergic reaction. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, because it's not overpowering like the new Disney shows these days are, gag me.
The writing style was simplistic and it's one that I liked. It wasn't told from Ana's point of view, which is surprising because most of the YA novels I've read are told from the main character's point of view. It's not a terrible thing, but it's not always the best. In this book, you get more than just Ana's views which is important to a story like this.
The ending did, of course, leave a cliffhanger and a small excerpt for the next book in the series.
All in all, the book was a quick read for the most part. I like the three main characters of the story and I enjoyed how it was written. Can you imagine finding a diary and it making things you write in it come true? The good will come with bad.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated My Life with Bob in Books
Sep 13, 2018
I need to read more books about books, because the few that I've read, I've really enjoyed! Earlier this year I read Tolstoy and the Purple Chair, and loved it. I have holds on Voracious: A Hungry Reader Cooks Her Way Through Great Books and The World Between Two Covers: Reading the Globe. (I also have a hold on The Man Who Loved Books Too Much, but I'm not sure that quite counts.) And, in looking up the links for those books, I just put holds on three more books about reading, since this is a genre I apparently enjoy!
My Life with Bob is about the author's reading life. Bob is a notebook she uses to keep track of what she's read. Just title and author, and whether or not she's finished it. Very simple. But in looking back through what she's read, she recalls where she was, and what she was doing or going through at the time. So the real story is how her reading choices fit into her life, and how being a bookworm affected her life.
I enjoyed the book, with the slight irritation (in the latter part of the book) of her insistence on calling Young Adult literature, Children's Lit. Children's books are picture books and books for young readers, not The Fault in Our Stars and The Hunger Games. Those are Young Adult, and there's a pretty big difference in my opinion. Maybe not in the professional world; she is the editor of The New York Times Book Review. But it's frustrating to hear her talk about Kid Lit and lump Harry Potter in with a 36-page autobiography of a teddy bear written for kids under 10.
I was also a little shocked to learn (in the book!) she wrote a book about how porn is destroying the American family, and testified before Congress about it, sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch and Sam Brownback. I normally don't have a problem reading Republican authors - I often don't know the exact political leanings of authors - but I'm reading about her reading choices, and suddenly they are all suspect. (She disliked Ayn Rand, at least, so that's something.) The book was published in May of last year, so after the last presidential election. Anyone who acknowledges working with the GOP at this point, and isn't embarrassed by it, immediately gets a black mark in my book.
So ultimately I'm torn on this book. I liked reading it. I dislike the author. (I will never even try to be non-political on this blog. Sorry-not-sorry.)
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
My Life with Bob is about the author's reading life. Bob is a notebook she uses to keep track of what she's read. Just title and author, and whether or not she's finished it. Very simple. But in looking back through what she's read, she recalls where she was, and what she was doing or going through at the time. So the real story is how her reading choices fit into her life, and how being a bookworm affected her life.
I enjoyed the book, with the slight irritation (in the latter part of the book) of her insistence on calling Young Adult literature, Children's Lit. Children's books are picture books and books for young readers, not The Fault in Our Stars and The Hunger Games. Those are Young Adult, and there's a pretty big difference in my opinion. Maybe not in the professional world; she is the editor of The New York Times Book Review. But it's frustrating to hear her talk about Kid Lit and lump Harry Potter in with a 36-page autobiography of a teddy bear written for kids under 10.
I was also a little shocked to learn (in the book!) she wrote a book about how porn is destroying the American family, and testified before Congress about it, sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch and Sam Brownback. I normally don't have a problem reading Republican authors - I often don't know the exact political leanings of authors - but I'm reading about her reading choices, and suddenly they are all suspect. (She disliked Ayn Rand, at least, so that's something.) The book was published in May of last year, so after the last presidential election. Anyone who acknowledges working with the GOP at this point, and isn't embarrassed by it, immediately gets a black mark in my book.
So ultimately I'm torn on this book. I liked reading it. I dislike the author. (I will never even try to be non-political on this blog. Sorry-not-sorry.)
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Marylegs (44 KP) rated The Traitor Queen (Traitor Spy Trilogy, #3) in Books
Aug 14, 2019
The Traitor Queen gripped me straight away, I did have a couple of pages where I was slightly confused but that was more to do with it having been a very long time between me reading this book and the previous books. However it didnt take long for it all to come back, and for me to remember what was happening, who was who and what I thought was going to happen. Throughout the book I felt so connected to all the characters, even those I hadnt previously liked.
As this is the last part of a sequel trilogy there were a number of characters to follow. Obviously Black Magician Sonea, who was the main character in the previous trilogy still has an important role and is travelling to Sachaka for diplomatic purposes, accompanied by Lord Regin. Lord Regin and Soneas relationship had developed greatly over the six books and I have to say I liked where his story lead to, from being a horrible, manipulative, spoilt character to a dignified, understanding and very likeable character. There is also Lord Lorkin, Sonea son, who has returned to the Sachakan capital after living a number of months with the Traitors, the outlaw band of black magicians that live in the mountains of Sachaka. He has had to leave Tyvara, the woman he has fallen in love with and doesnt know if he will see her again. He knows at some point he will have to choose between her and the traitors and his home in the allied lands. Also back home is Lilia, Anyi, Cery and Gol who are undertaking in a completed different story line that is equally dramatic and important to the development of allied lands. All the characters storylines climax in devastating amazing ways.
As this was the end of long series if you include both trilogies I have been able to see full character developments, share their losses, see how that has changed them. This has been a brilliant series and one I have enjoyed immensely. I will say I think over all I preferred the first trilogy more, but only because I felt it was more raw and emotional. This trilogy, using the same character base, I found that I connected most with the characters I already knew and never truly warmed to new additions. However it was nice to be able to see these characters I knew grow up and change. Would highly recommend, if you enjoyed other YA books like Harry Potter, Hunger Games, Tales of the Otori etc; I would imagine you would love the original series and this one.
As this is the last part of a sequel trilogy there were a number of characters to follow. Obviously Black Magician Sonea, who was the main character in the previous trilogy still has an important role and is travelling to Sachaka for diplomatic purposes, accompanied by Lord Regin. Lord Regin and Soneas relationship had developed greatly over the six books and I have to say I liked where his story lead to, from being a horrible, manipulative, spoilt character to a dignified, understanding and very likeable character. There is also Lord Lorkin, Sonea son, who has returned to the Sachakan capital after living a number of months with the Traitors, the outlaw band of black magicians that live in the mountains of Sachaka. He has had to leave Tyvara, the woman he has fallen in love with and doesnt know if he will see her again. He knows at some point he will have to choose between her and the traitors and his home in the allied lands. Also back home is Lilia, Anyi, Cery and Gol who are undertaking in a completed different story line that is equally dramatic and important to the development of allied lands. All the characters storylines climax in devastating amazing ways.
As this was the end of long series if you include both trilogies I have been able to see full character developments, share their losses, see how that has changed them. This has been a brilliant series and one I have enjoyed immensely. I will say I think over all I preferred the first trilogy more, but only because I felt it was more raw and emotional. This trilogy, using the same character base, I found that I connected most with the characters I already knew and never truly warmed to new additions. However it was nice to be able to see these characters I knew grow up and change. Would highly recommend, if you enjoyed other YA books like Harry Potter, Hunger Games, Tales of the Otori etc; I would imagine you would love the original series and this one.
James Koppert (2698 KP) rated Thorn in Books
Mar 29, 2020
A Phenomenon
There are some young adults books, Harry Potter, Letter for the King, His Dark Materials that can be translated through the languages of the world and for decades or more, be held up as classics of young literature, deserved to be read and bring joy for all ages. Thorn deserves to be held up in equal company as these. I won't beat about the bush, this is an exceptional, beautiful entertaining tale deserving to be a global best-seller for many many years. If you read my reviews I don't thrust such extreme praise on everything I read, but Thorn is the type of book you end up taking a days holiday off work just to carry on engaging with this wonderful story.
Intisar Khanani is a very special writer, like Neil Gaiman, she takes the world and weaves an understated thread of magic and fantasy into the story that provides an undercurrent which bubbles to the surface. The fact it is understated brings you a acceptance without question of the world you are reading, so magic spells and talking horses are as accepted as characters eating a meal. Intisar Khanani's writing flows effortlessly. When you are reading a true master of the art, they write in a way where you forget you are reading at all and are simply viewing a world from the pages. This is such a book.
Thorn contains very human characters who you will feel a deep tenderness for. It contains morality and dilemma asking you to question whether you put your happiness first or the duty of bettering the world? What is justice and rule? Do you seek justice through revenge or lessons as just a few. Yet these moralities are not there to beat you round the head, they are part of the grain of the story where you raise the questions alongside that of the adorable lead character whose gentle female strength is ferocious, again in a beautifully subtle way.
I don't want to give away any of the plot, I want you t pick up the book and let it unravel before your eyes like I did. Be wicked away into a rich multicultural world full of what i hope are many stories yet to be told.
Thorn may not just be the best young adult book of the decade, it could well be one of the best fantasy novels as well, that will be read and then re-read for the next few decades and beyond. Intisar Khanani is about to be a global superstar and deserves every particle of light the spotlight is made up of shining on her.
Intisar Khanani is a very special writer, like Neil Gaiman, she takes the world and weaves an understated thread of magic and fantasy into the story that provides an undercurrent which bubbles to the surface. The fact it is understated brings you a acceptance without question of the world you are reading, so magic spells and talking horses are as accepted as characters eating a meal. Intisar Khanani's writing flows effortlessly. When you are reading a true master of the art, they write in a way where you forget you are reading at all and are simply viewing a world from the pages. This is such a book.
Thorn contains very human characters who you will feel a deep tenderness for. It contains morality and dilemma asking you to question whether you put your happiness first or the duty of bettering the world? What is justice and rule? Do you seek justice through revenge or lessons as just a few. Yet these moralities are not there to beat you round the head, they are part of the grain of the story where you raise the questions alongside that of the adorable lead character whose gentle female strength is ferocious, again in a beautifully subtle way.
I don't want to give away any of the plot, I want you t pick up the book and let it unravel before your eyes like I did. Be wicked away into a rich multicultural world full of what i hope are many stories yet to be told.
Thorn may not just be the best young adult book of the decade, it could well be one of the best fantasy novels as well, that will be read and then re-read for the next few decades and beyond. Intisar Khanani is about to be a global superstar and deserves every particle of light the spotlight is made up of shining on her.