Search
Search results
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Joker follows Arthur Fleck’s descent from a somewhat mentally troubled comedian to becoming the Joker, arch Batman villain and force for chaos.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Ballerina Princess Doll House - Game.s for Girls
Lifestyle and Entertainment
App
▶▶▶ It's time to design your playhome and create a dream home for your ballerina girl!...
Smoovie Stop Motion
Photo & Video and Education
App
"Smoovie will help you to create a lesson that your children will remember, whatever your subject." ...
Skin Creator 3D for Minecraft
Utilities and Games
App
Unleash your imagination and easily build your skins in full 3D. With your imagination and the help...
PhotoPills
Photo & Video and Education
App
Unlock your creative potential! Discover how to easily turn any Sun, Moon and Milky Way scene you...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“He’s waited for me; I’ve waited for him”.
A blood-soaked history.
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated The Supernaturals in Books
Apr 10, 2018
Great horror story with creep factor
The beauty of reading horror books is this: even though you’ve probably read this same thing or read the same horror book with similar plots, cookie cutter characters, etc, what really matters at the end of the day is; does it provide you with enough chills and creep factor to get you reading?
Thankfully, this one delivers!
The plot is pretty standard; haunted house that is on the market but nobody buys it. It needs a super cleansing and a group of people are gathered and led by a Professor who’s looking out for redemption. It seems pretty much like a typical horror plot out there but it’s well written and the flow is consistent. That being said, the real action starts about the last third of the book. Think of this book as an introduction to a cast of characters, and what their ‘gifts’ are like. Their background stories are provided, and everything leading up to the night at the house is well done. It prepares to reader as to what to look forward to (with some creep factor in between)
So let’s get to the creep factor. It’s definitely there. The descriptions and events happening is enough to give the reader chills and leaves it to their imagination. There’s plenty of loud noise moments, evil laughter, and things going bump in the night to contribute to the enjoyment of reading this book.
The characters could have been better now, perhaps because it’s an introduction to the group but there’s not much substance to them (at least to some) I was a bit disappointed in George and Leonard because they had a lot to contribute but it seemed to have fizzled out when it really counts. For the most part it’s mostly John, Jenny and Gabriel in the spotlight. They’re all pretty much likable and their own storylines are good to read to provide more ‘fleshing out’ of the character.
It’s a solid horror story with a good ending. Of course it looks like there’s a second book coming out and I’m going to go and read it. I enjoyed this one immensely.
Thankfully, this one delivers!
The plot is pretty standard; haunted house that is on the market but nobody buys it. It needs a super cleansing and a group of people are gathered and led by a Professor who’s looking out for redemption. It seems pretty much like a typical horror plot out there but it’s well written and the flow is consistent. That being said, the real action starts about the last third of the book. Think of this book as an introduction to a cast of characters, and what their ‘gifts’ are like. Their background stories are provided, and everything leading up to the night at the house is well done. It prepares to reader as to what to look forward to (with some creep factor in between)
So let’s get to the creep factor. It’s definitely there. The descriptions and events happening is enough to give the reader chills and leaves it to their imagination. There’s plenty of loud noise moments, evil laughter, and things going bump in the night to contribute to the enjoyment of reading this book.
The characters could have been better now, perhaps because it’s an introduction to the group but there’s not much substance to them (at least to some) I was a bit disappointed in George and Leonard because they had a lot to contribute but it seemed to have fizzled out when it really counts. For the most part it’s mostly John, Jenny and Gabriel in the spotlight. They’re all pretty much likable and their own storylines are good to read to provide more ‘fleshing out’ of the character.
It’s a solid horror story with a good ending. Of course it looks like there’s a second book coming out and I’m going to go and read it. I enjoyed this one immensely.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Letters to Ethan: A Grandfather's Legacy of Life & Love in Books
Feb 11, 2019
Right from the beginning, I found the seriousness to which the author, Tom McQueen, approaches his role as a grandfather to his grandson, Ethan, as both endearing and worthy of my respect. What he is attempting to do with the letters found in this book is a commendable goal that not many grandparents may go through the trouble to achieve. Each "chapter" of the book is actually a four-to-six page letter and headed by a quotation that applies to the topic of the letter. Each of the letters address a specific topic, such as Heroism, Risk, Integrity, Love, and Imagination, to name a few. Some of the letters also include excerpts from other sources that McQueen finds wisdom in, such as poetry or short stories like the famous story "Footprints in the Sand." Many of the letters make references to sports and sports imagery, such as citing Wayne Gretsky's accomplishments, which is certainly appropriate for most boys. The letters are also peppered with poignant memories of McQueen's and bits of history, such as the story of George Washington Carver.
It becomes apparent in the first letter that this book has a decidedly Roman Catholic slant, and many of the letters include Catholic doctrine teachings. If the reader does not prescribe to Roman Catholicism, this can be a major obstacle to enjoying this book. The other thing that bugs me throughout the text is that I can not figure out at what age the author intended his grandson to read these letters. Some of the topics are rather mature, and they would not be appropriate for a boy that is too young to receive the advice given in the letter, no matter how well-meaning it is. I also could not decipher if McQueen's grandson, Ethan, was supposed to read these letters while his grandfather was still alive or if they were meant for after he passed - again, this would make sense if the appropriate age were given for each letter.
If I ignore the obvious bias in the letters, I found much of the advice given to be relevant and useful wisdom for a young man - or woman - attaining to adulthood.
It becomes apparent in the first letter that this book has a decidedly Roman Catholic slant, and many of the letters include Catholic doctrine teachings. If the reader does not prescribe to Roman Catholicism, this can be a major obstacle to enjoying this book. The other thing that bugs me throughout the text is that I can not figure out at what age the author intended his grandson to read these letters. Some of the topics are rather mature, and they would not be appropriate for a boy that is too young to receive the advice given in the letter, no matter how well-meaning it is. I also could not decipher if McQueen's grandson, Ethan, was supposed to read these letters while his grandfather was still alive or if they were meant for after he passed - again, this would make sense if the appropriate age were given for each letter.
If I ignore the obvious bias in the letters, I found much of the advice given to be relevant and useful wisdom for a young man - or woman - attaining to adulthood.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Blood Confession in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<i>4.5 stars</i>
After reading THE BLOOD CONFESSION, I find it a bit surprising that this is specifically targeted to young adults. Not that they wouldn't appreciate or like it, although I don't know how much the appeal would be to that age range unless they're especially morbid (as I was and still am), but because of the subtle nuances and intricate study of character, morality, and belief system, which is well suited for adult readers as well. The book is mainly a character study and the author does a fantastic job bringing Erzebet to life, while slowly and believably evolving her into a mentally ill woman. I never could quite figure out if she was narcissistic, schizophrenic, suffering from some sort of body dysmorphic disorder, something altogether different, or all previously mentioned.
The writing is solid and I found myself sinking into the world Ms. Libby created, with it's brilliant Gothic atmosphere. The pacing had a few slow spots, but nothing that made the book come to a screeching halt. I confess to a few queasy moments thanks to an overactive imagination, but the gore is minimal and the author doesn't romanticize blood letting or murder for vanity.
What I should warn readers is that comparing this Erzebet Bizecka to the real Erzsebet Bathory would be a mistake. This fictional Countess doesn't have much in common with the legendary figure and is only (very) loosely based on her. That Erzsebet Bathory bathed in blood is an unfounded rumor and no one really knows why she killed these girls or how many. Some even say she was framed. Unfortunately the truth is lost to history and we'll never really know.
Only a few quibbles keep me from giving it a perfect rating, but all in all, it was an absorbing read. A couple of lingering questions remained, such as how exactly did Erzebet's mother go insane? I can guess what could have helped it along, but I don't really believe that's all it would have taken. What happened to Snow at the end?
After reading THE BLOOD CONFESSION, I find it a bit surprising that this is specifically targeted to young adults. Not that they wouldn't appreciate or like it, although I don't know how much the appeal would be to that age range unless they're especially morbid (as I was and still am), but because of the subtle nuances and intricate study of character, morality, and belief system, which is well suited for adult readers as well. The book is mainly a character study and the author does a fantastic job bringing Erzebet to life, while slowly and believably evolving her into a mentally ill woman. I never could quite figure out if she was narcissistic, schizophrenic, suffering from some sort of body dysmorphic disorder, something altogether different, or all previously mentioned.
The writing is solid and I found myself sinking into the world Ms. Libby created, with it's brilliant Gothic atmosphere. The pacing had a few slow spots, but nothing that made the book come to a screeching halt. I confess to a few queasy moments thanks to an overactive imagination, but the gore is minimal and the author doesn't romanticize blood letting or murder for vanity.
What I should warn readers is that comparing this Erzebet Bizecka to the real Erzsebet Bathory would be a mistake. This fictional Countess doesn't have much in common with the legendary figure and is only (very) loosely based on her. That Erzsebet Bathory bathed in blood is an unfounded rumor and no one really knows why she killed these girls or how many. Some even say she was framed. Unfortunately the truth is lost to history and we'll never really know.
Only a few quibbles keep me from giving it a perfect rating, but all in all, it was an absorbing read. A couple of lingering questions remained, such as how exactly did Erzebet's mother go insane? I can guess what could have helped it along, but I don't really believe that's all it would have taken. What happened to Snow at the end?
Kyera (8 KP) rated Hunting Prince Dracula in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Hunting Prince Dracula is the second book in the Stalking Jack the Ripper series, which is a fantastic Victorian-era forensics mystery that takes its readers on a harrowing journey with its main characters. In Hunting, Audrey Rose and Thomas travel to Romania to study at one of Europe's foremost schools on forensic science. Although they expected to examine cadavers, they never thought the bodies would belong to victims of a killer in the midst of their spree.
I found the plot of Hunting Prince Dracula to be more enjoyable than its predecessor, Stalking Jack the Ripper. There was a new cast of supporting characters which brought a depth to the storyline that wasn't as prevalent previously. There were more characters that had been introduced and developed that you formed bonds with or questioned their intentions - could they be the killer or the next victim?
By far my favourite aspect of the series was the Holmes/Watson-esque relationship between Thomas and Audrey Rose. Thomas' quips and barbs were the most enjoyable parts of the book, despite his sometimes rakish manner. He was my favourite character in both the first and second book. It was nice to see his emotional development over the course of the novel as he had previously been hiding that aspect of himself.
Audrey Rose continues to monologue incessantly in her head, both chastizing herself profusely for her feelings and reliving the events of Stalking Jack the Ripper. It is clear that she is suffering from a traumatic event, but is unable to determine how to deal with it. It was interesting to see her attempting to cope, yet sometimes falling prey to fits of her imagination as she was unable to process the events completely. Stalking pushed Audrey Rose in ways that she was not equipped to deal with and her struggle throughout the book feels authentic.
I felt that the mystery was very well done and the culprit wasn't obvious from the first few pages, rather you questioned everything up until the very end. Our heroes conclude the story with the news that they will be traveling once more and Escaping from Houdini in the third book in this series.
I found the plot of Hunting Prince Dracula to be more enjoyable than its predecessor, Stalking Jack the Ripper. There was a new cast of supporting characters which brought a depth to the storyline that wasn't as prevalent previously. There were more characters that had been introduced and developed that you formed bonds with or questioned their intentions - could they be the killer or the next victim?
By far my favourite aspect of the series was the Holmes/Watson-esque relationship between Thomas and Audrey Rose. Thomas' quips and barbs were the most enjoyable parts of the book, despite his sometimes rakish manner. He was my favourite character in both the first and second book. It was nice to see his emotional development over the course of the novel as he had previously been hiding that aspect of himself.
Audrey Rose continues to monologue incessantly in her head, both chastizing herself profusely for her feelings and reliving the events of Stalking Jack the Ripper. It is clear that she is suffering from a traumatic event, but is unable to determine how to deal with it. It was interesting to see her attempting to cope, yet sometimes falling prey to fits of her imagination as she was unable to process the events completely. Stalking pushed Audrey Rose in ways that she was not equipped to deal with and her struggle throughout the book feels authentic.
I felt that the mystery was very well done and the culprit wasn't obvious from the first few pages, rather you questioned everything up until the very end. Our heroes conclude the story with the news that they will be traveling once more and Escaping from Houdini in the third book in this series.