Search
Search results
Barry Newman (204 KP) rated I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998) in Movies
Mar 30, 2020
The kills are a bit gorier than the original and Jennifer Love Hewitt's wardrobe is allot skimpier ,but other than that there is little to recommend in this bland and pedestrian sequel. The very definition of a lazy cliched slasher movie that is chock full of irritating new characters you long to be killed off (Mekhi Pfieffer, Brandy and dreadlocked stoner Jack Black) and plot holes and ridiculous twists. So many better horror movies out there worth watching instead.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Mar 7, 2018
Far too long, far too dull
So, I guess I'm one of those people who were warned by other reviews not to go into this expecting to see a Black Widow movie and ignored the advice. I kind of did expect something along those lines, just a little bit, and I was therefore seriously disappointed. I'm not adverse to a lack of action and don't mind having to use my brain when watching a movie but this just didn't grab me at all and felt like it was trying too hard to be too many different things, while not really achieving any of them.
Jennifer Lawrence does an incredible job, in what is a very demanding role. But, this is just far too long and far too dull.
Jennifer Lawrence does an incredible job, in what is a very demanding role. But, this is just far too long and far too dull.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated I Care a Lot (2020) in Movies
Feb 27, 2021
Rosamund Pike - what Gone Girl did next (1 more)
Supporting cast: Peter Dinklage, Eiza Gonzáles and Dianne Wiest
An inky black comedy thriller
Maria Grayson (Rosamund Pike) and her colleague-cum-lover Fran (Eiza González) are running an extensive con. Through the manipulation of the Boston legal and medical systems, Maria arranges to be appointed the legal guardian for numerous older people. Packing them away to a drugged up life in a care home, the pair then plunder the estates of their wards, turning a tidy profit. The weatlhy and unattached Jennifer Peterson (Dianne Wiest) appears to be a "cherry" that can take their fortunes to a completely different level. But all is not as it seems, and Maria and Fran's evil but comfortable lives are about to be turned on their heads.
Positives:
- When I say the comedy is inky black, I mean it. It's unusual to find a movie without a single character that you can relate to or even remotely like. For some reason, it reminded me of the Michael Douglas / Kathleen Turner vehicle "The War of the Roses" in that regard. And yet, once you let the evilness of it sink in, it becomes a rip-roaring story that delights to the very end.
- Rosamund Pike delivers yet again another superb performance, making Maria an icy cold villain. The role could be summed up as "What Gone Girl did next".
- Peter Dinklage delights in portraying an evil character which, for reasons of spoiler avoidance, I shall say nothing further about. But it's a cracking performance and brilliant to see a script that steadfastly ignores his physical characteristics.
- Dianne Wiest ("The Mule") and Eiza González ("the sexy one" from "Baby Driver") also deliver strong supporting roles.
-J Blakeson - who did "The Disappearance of Alice Creed" - directs with style, and hopefully his truly novel screenplay will be suitably recognised through awards. There are some clever twists: one near the end which (Smug McSmuggerson from the University of Smugchester) I saw coming, and another one soon after that I didn't!
- Mark Canham - not a composer I know - delivers a really engaging and bouncy score that's top notch. Loved it.
Negatives:
- The plot is just SO inky black at the beginning, that some may get through the first 15 minutes and think "Nope, not for me". You should stick with it: after Peter Dinklage appears, the movie shifts up a gear and changes in tone.
- The plot occasionally stretches credibility beyond breaking point. In particular, all the characters seem to be wholly incompetent at 'dispatching people' when they have the opportunity to do so. The repetition of these failures I found to be a bit tiresome.
Summary: Finding a movie with a novel storyline is an unusual thing these days, and one that combines that with a taut and engrossing screenplay is a gem indeed. It's probably not one recommended for very elderly people to watch.... then again, perhaps with so many evil scammers around in real life, it might be considered required viewing! But, if you have one, you'll probably want to have a chat with your granny after watching this.
(For the full graphical review, check out the full review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/02/27/i-care-a-lot-an-inky-black-comedy-thriller/. Thanks).
Positives:
- When I say the comedy is inky black, I mean it. It's unusual to find a movie without a single character that you can relate to or even remotely like. For some reason, it reminded me of the Michael Douglas / Kathleen Turner vehicle "The War of the Roses" in that regard. And yet, once you let the evilness of it sink in, it becomes a rip-roaring story that delights to the very end.
- Rosamund Pike delivers yet again another superb performance, making Maria an icy cold villain. The role could be summed up as "What Gone Girl did next".
- Peter Dinklage delights in portraying an evil character which, for reasons of spoiler avoidance, I shall say nothing further about. But it's a cracking performance and brilliant to see a script that steadfastly ignores his physical characteristics.
- Dianne Wiest ("The Mule") and Eiza González ("the sexy one" from "Baby Driver") also deliver strong supporting roles.
-J Blakeson - who did "The Disappearance of Alice Creed" - directs with style, and hopefully his truly novel screenplay will be suitably recognised through awards. There are some clever twists: one near the end which (Smug McSmuggerson from the University of Smugchester) I saw coming, and another one soon after that I didn't!
- Mark Canham - not a composer I know - delivers a really engaging and bouncy score that's top notch. Loved it.
Negatives:
- The plot is just SO inky black at the beginning, that some may get through the first 15 minutes and think "Nope, not for me". You should stick with it: after Peter Dinklage appears, the movie shifts up a gear and changes in tone.
- The plot occasionally stretches credibility beyond breaking point. In particular, all the characters seem to be wholly incompetent at 'dispatching people' when they have the opportunity to do so. The repetition of these failures I found to be a bit tiresome.
Summary: Finding a movie with a novel storyline is an unusual thing these days, and one that combines that with a taut and engrossing screenplay is a gem indeed. It's probably not one recommended for very elderly people to watch.... then again, perhaps with so many evil scammers around in real life, it might be considered required viewing! But, if you have one, you'll probably want to have a chat with your granny after watching this.
(For the full graphical review, check out the full review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/02/27/i-care-a-lot-an-inky-black-comedy-thriller/. Thanks).
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/
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated 9-1-1 in TV
Jul 8, 2019 (Updated Apr 4, 2021)
Stiff acting (4 more)
Fake fake fake fake fake
Scenarios no professional first responder would ever get into.
Terrible writing
Are there no medical director/firefighter/police officer technical advisers to tell them the correct way to do ALL OF THIS?
I like Connie Britton, who was a cast member during the first season of this show. However, she is no longer there and there is nothing to hold my interest and many, many things to make me lose interest. 911 has stiff acting and outrageously fake scenarios. She was replaced by Jennifer Love Hewitt, whom I'm neutral on for the most part, but I don't like her character, the scenarios she gets into, or her lines. Her acting isn't that great in this show, either, come to think of it. The manufactured drama is too forced. I've seen her do a better job with drama so I don't know if it's the director's choice or if she's taking dramatic license, but either way, her character isn't great. The characters, for the most part, are not believable or likable. It's just not a good cast. I like the diversity of the cast. There are several black cast members, an Asian cast member, and at least one Latinx cast member, which is so much better than most other shows, and let's face it than most of society. Come on, people, Let's mingle and mix things up.
I recently tried to watch 911 due to a draught of medical dramas and I ended up yelling at the tv about all the technical mistakes the EMTs and firefighters were making. I mean, they took an elevator up to an upper floor when the building was unstable and at risk of collapse or having a power outage. It was ridiculous. Who does that? If you are good at suspending belief, maybe you can tolerate this show. But as a hard-core medical freak, I cannot.
I recently tried to watch 911 due to a draught of medical dramas and I ended up yelling at the tv about all the technical mistakes the EMTs and firefighters were making. I mean, they took an elevator up to an upper floor when the building was unstable and at risk of collapse or having a power outage. It was ridiculous. Who does that? If you are good at suspending belief, maybe you can tolerate this show. But as a hard-core medical freak, I cannot.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Long Black Veil in Books
May 16, 2018
Last month, I received my first physical review copy of a book: Long Black Veil by Jennifer Finney Boylan. I heard about the title through a friend of mine and, after I reading its synopsis, I felt excited. Despite the story's label as a thriller, the majority of the story focuses on Judith Carrigan and her secrets. The plot's so-called mystery is a minor detail in this narrative.
I don't do a lot of research before I read a recommended book. For the most part, I look at its genre, the back cover blurb, and its general rating. I don't read other reviews until after I complete the book. By doing this, I avoid pre-conceived notions of a story's characters. With that in mind, there are details of this book I will not discuss. Some of this is due to a desire to keep this spoiler free. Others are not my story to tell. These facts help to define Judith as a character, but they do not exonerate her.
A dark past isn't uncommon. For Judith, there are skeletons in her closet capable of destroying her entire life. She can either sacrifice what she has built and save an innocent man or let things unfold. It is this latter option that she leans toward and, as a result, she strikes me as being nearly as selfish as Flynn's Amy Dunne in Gone Girl. I have mixed feelings about Long Black Veil because of this. Part of me wants to comfort Judith while another part of me wishes to throttle her.
Despite centering around Judith instead of the decades old mystery than haunts her, Boylan excels at creating an intriguing narrative. It's the passion with which she writes Judy that warms my heart to her, that provides me with the ability to feel even a modicum of sympathy for her struggles. Like all of us, Judy has a right to happiness. Boylan pens Judith beautifully as she reaches for that penultimate feeling that eludes many of us.
In stark contrast to my complaint regarding the story centering around Judith, Boylan somehow manages to give readers too many insights into this unraveling mystery. The story beings with six characters. Seven, to be technical. Throughout its pages, we end up with no less than six different perspectives. This makes it a difficult to follow at times, especially in regards to Judith's memories. (Again, this is a detail you will discover by reading the book, so I will not divulge it.)
Boylan succeeds, despite the plethora of perspectives, at keeping the story moving along. The further in you read, the more twists you encounter - some of which threw me off entirely. While this is not one of my favorite titles and likely will not merit a re-read, it was not unpleasant.
I would like to thank Blogging for Books for providing me with a copy of this book for the purpose of unbiased review.
I don't do a lot of research before I read a recommended book. For the most part, I look at its genre, the back cover blurb, and its general rating. I don't read other reviews until after I complete the book. By doing this, I avoid pre-conceived notions of a story's characters. With that in mind, there are details of this book I will not discuss. Some of this is due to a desire to keep this spoiler free. Others are not my story to tell. These facts help to define Judith as a character, but they do not exonerate her.
A dark past isn't uncommon. For Judith, there are skeletons in her closet capable of destroying her entire life. She can either sacrifice what she has built and save an innocent man or let things unfold. It is this latter option that she leans toward and, as a result, she strikes me as being nearly as selfish as Flynn's Amy Dunne in Gone Girl. I have mixed feelings about Long Black Veil because of this. Part of me wants to comfort Judith while another part of me wishes to throttle her.
Despite centering around Judith instead of the decades old mystery than haunts her, Boylan excels at creating an intriguing narrative. It's the passion with which she writes Judy that warms my heart to her, that provides me with the ability to feel even a modicum of sympathy for her struggles. Like all of us, Judy has a right to happiness. Boylan pens Judith beautifully as she reaches for that penultimate feeling that eludes many of us.
In stark contrast to my complaint regarding the story centering around Judith, Boylan somehow manages to give readers too many insights into this unraveling mystery. The story beings with six characters. Seven, to be technical. Throughout its pages, we end up with no less than six different perspectives. This makes it a difficult to follow at times, especially in regards to Judith's memories. (Again, this is a detail you will discover by reading the book, so I will not divulge it.)
Boylan succeeds, despite the plethora of perspectives, at keeping the story moving along. The further in you read, the more twists you encounter - some of which threw me off entirely. While this is not one of my favorite titles and likely will not merit a re-read, it was not unpleasant.
I would like to thank Blogging for Books for providing me with a copy of this book for the purpose of unbiased review.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Noah (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Biblical epics never seem to translate well from paper to the big screen. Mel Gibson’s 2004 misfire, The Passion of the Christ, showed just how difficult it was to turn promising source material into silver screen gold.
Now, 10 years on from that, Black Swan director Darren Aronofsky breathes new life into the biblical genre with his take on the classic ‘Noah’ tale. But can his sixth attempt behind the camera reverse the ailing genre’s fortunes?
Unfortunately, the answer is no. From lacklustre special effects to dreadful acting, Aronofsky’s biblical epic fails from start to finish, with only a few key scenes lifting it above The Passion of the Christ.
Noah follows the story of the titular hero played by Russell Crowe as he sets out on a mission given to him by the ‘Creator’ to rid the world of its evil and to start afresh. Jennifer Connelly plays Noah’s wife Naameh and Ray Winstone portrays his arch nemesis, Tubal-cain.
The story is like the tale we all know, but on steroids. Gone is the subtlety of the bibleNoah-poster version and in its place is a stark environmental message as Noah tells his family and those around him that humans have destroyed the planet and that we ourselves, must be destroyed. From stone angels sent to watch over the human race, to the addition of numerous characters, Noah rids the story of its depth in favour of poor special effects and anti-climatic battles. It’s a real shame as Aronofsky has proven himself to be utterly talented behind the lens.
The performances are also well-below what we expect from such gifted actors. Emma Watson’s take of Ila, Noah’s daughter-in-law is laughable at best; a world away from the talent we saw towards the end of the Harry Potter series. Jennifer Connelly is outstandingly poor and Russell Crowe seems to be on auto-pilot as he spouts meaningless drivel. Only Anthony Hopkins leaves his fine reputation in tact as Methuselah, though he is in the film for less than 15 minutes.
Moreover, the best and most memorable part from the bible story, the animals, is completely misguided. Not only are they playing second fiddle to the ridiculous rivalry between Noah and Ray Winstone’s idiotic villain, they are rendered in such poor CGI, you never truly believe that they are there. The elephants and snakes in particular are very shoddy.
Thankfully all is not lost. Being a Darren Aronofsky film, Noah is a beautifully shot film. The cinematography is outstanding with stunning vistas of a huge variety of landscapes and the inclusion of an exciting Genesis featurette in the latter half of the picture are real highlights.
At 138 minutes Noah is a true bum-number and there’ll be lots of shuffling about in your seat as you struggle to digest each and every part of information the film shoves down your throat.
Unfortunately, a promising marketing campaign and some good trailers mask a film which never rises above average. The special effects really needed much more work and the acting is very poor. Only a few stand-out scenes stop it from falling below The Passion of the Christ as another biblical turkey.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/14/noah-review/
Now, 10 years on from that, Black Swan director Darren Aronofsky breathes new life into the biblical genre with his take on the classic ‘Noah’ tale. But can his sixth attempt behind the camera reverse the ailing genre’s fortunes?
Unfortunately, the answer is no. From lacklustre special effects to dreadful acting, Aronofsky’s biblical epic fails from start to finish, with only a few key scenes lifting it above The Passion of the Christ.
Noah follows the story of the titular hero played by Russell Crowe as he sets out on a mission given to him by the ‘Creator’ to rid the world of its evil and to start afresh. Jennifer Connelly plays Noah’s wife Naameh and Ray Winstone portrays his arch nemesis, Tubal-cain.
The story is like the tale we all know, but on steroids. Gone is the subtlety of the bibleNoah-poster version and in its place is a stark environmental message as Noah tells his family and those around him that humans have destroyed the planet and that we ourselves, must be destroyed. From stone angels sent to watch over the human race, to the addition of numerous characters, Noah rids the story of its depth in favour of poor special effects and anti-climatic battles. It’s a real shame as Aronofsky has proven himself to be utterly talented behind the lens.
The performances are also well-below what we expect from such gifted actors. Emma Watson’s take of Ila, Noah’s daughter-in-law is laughable at best; a world away from the talent we saw towards the end of the Harry Potter series. Jennifer Connelly is outstandingly poor and Russell Crowe seems to be on auto-pilot as he spouts meaningless drivel. Only Anthony Hopkins leaves his fine reputation in tact as Methuselah, though he is in the film for less than 15 minutes.
Moreover, the best and most memorable part from the bible story, the animals, is completely misguided. Not only are they playing second fiddle to the ridiculous rivalry between Noah and Ray Winstone’s idiotic villain, they are rendered in such poor CGI, you never truly believe that they are there. The elephants and snakes in particular are very shoddy.
Thankfully all is not lost. Being a Darren Aronofsky film, Noah is a beautifully shot film. The cinematography is outstanding with stunning vistas of a huge variety of landscapes and the inclusion of an exciting Genesis featurette in the latter half of the picture are real highlights.
At 138 minutes Noah is a true bum-number and there’ll be lots of shuffling about in your seat as you struggle to digest each and every part of information the film shoves down your throat.
Unfortunately, a promising marketing campaign and some good trailers mask a film which never rises above average. The special effects really needed much more work and the acting is very poor. Only a few stand-out scenes stop it from falling below The Passion of the Christ as another biblical turkey.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/14/noah-review/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Who Do You Love in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Who Do You Love</i> is the latest contemporary romance by the author Jennifer Weiner. Beginning in 1985 it tells the story of two contrasting characters up until the year 2015. Rachel was born with a congenital heart condition that resulted in her being hospitalized a number of times during her childhood. When she was eight years old she met an injured boy named Andy and struck up a very brief friendship. Later she coincidently meets him again during her teens, and the pair fall in love, resulting in an on and off long distance relationship over the following years.
Despite their love for each other, the two main characters come from completely different backgrounds. Putting her heart condition aside, Rachel had a fairly pleasant Jewish upbringing, with well off parents, a pool in her back yard, the chance to go to any college she wished to. Andy, on the other hand, attended a Roman Catholic school where he was constantly getting in to trouble for fighting when others teased him about his poor, single parent home life, or his deceased black father. However, regardless of their upbringing, Rachel grows up to become a fairly successful social worker, and Andy an Olympic athlete.
The reader gets the chance to learn about each character through the alternating points of view. Ultimately we wish that Andy and Rachel could live happily ever after together, but as we read, life and differences often get in the way. This will they, won’t they idea exists throughout the entire novel making the ending rather predictable, although not at all disappointing.
Personally I preferred the narrative toward the beginning of the story. It was interesting to read about Rachel’s heart problems, and Andy’s struggles growing up. Once they reached adulthood their relationship became more sexual, something that was written about in far too much detail.
<i>Who Do You Love</i> is the kind of book suitable for women to read over the summer, or anytime they have the opportunity to sit back and relax. It is not a quick read due to its lengthy chapters, therefore the less distractions the better!
Who Do You Love</i> is the latest contemporary romance by the author Jennifer Weiner. Beginning in 1985 it tells the story of two contrasting characters up until the year 2015. Rachel was born with a congenital heart condition that resulted in her being hospitalized a number of times during her childhood. When she was eight years old she met an injured boy named Andy and struck up a very brief friendship. Later she coincidently meets him again during her teens, and the pair fall in love, resulting in an on and off long distance relationship over the following years.
Despite their love for each other, the two main characters come from completely different backgrounds. Putting her heart condition aside, Rachel had a fairly pleasant Jewish upbringing, with well off parents, a pool in her back yard, the chance to go to any college she wished to. Andy, on the other hand, attended a Roman Catholic school where he was constantly getting in to trouble for fighting when others teased him about his poor, single parent home life, or his deceased black father. However, regardless of their upbringing, Rachel grows up to become a fairly successful social worker, and Andy an Olympic athlete.
The reader gets the chance to learn about each character through the alternating points of view. Ultimately we wish that Andy and Rachel could live happily ever after together, but as we read, life and differences often get in the way. This will they, won’t they idea exists throughout the entire novel making the ending rather predictable, although not at all disappointing.
Personally I preferred the narrative toward the beginning of the story. It was interesting to read about Rachel’s heart problems, and Andy’s struggles growing up. Once they reached adulthood their relationship became more sexual, something that was written about in far too much detail.
<i>Who Do You Love</i> is the kind of book suitable for women to read over the summer, or anytime they have the opportunity to sit back and relax. It is not a quick read due to its lengthy chapters, therefore the less distractions the better!
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated The Hunger Games in Books
Jan 2, 2019
I finished this book for the second time around 15 minutes ago, and I’m still missing being part of its world. Yes, it’s that good. Actually, I read the whole book just today. The first time I read it, just before the film came out, I’d followed a friend’s recommendation to read the books first, and devoured all three in as many days. I then had to give up my Kindle for a few days so that my friend could read it, and she was just as enamoured. I know my American cousins loved it too. Safe to say, it was very popular in my circle of friends! I have heard a couple of dismissive comments saying it’s a rip-off of Battle Royale, but I haven’t read that yet, so I’ll reserve judgement.
Set in post-apocalyptic America, now known as Panem, the book very quickly sets Katniss, the protagonist, up as a fiercely protective older sister. <spoiler>So protective, she learnt to hunt, barter on the black market and generally help her family survive when their father dies and their mother is overcome by depression. So protective, she volunteers in her sister’s place for the practically suicidal Hunger Games.</spoiler> It’s not long into the book that the reaping takes place, but by the time it does, the reader knows all they need to about who Katniss is, where she’s coming from, and also sets the scene for her dilemma over the coming books. I was rooting for her all the way, and the way Suzanne Collins writes from Katniss’s perspective is extremely effective. I was constantly sympathising with her, while at the same time simply admiring how the cogs in her mind worked in helping her to survive. None of it seemed contrived.
I’m a really big fan of dystopias anyway, but I loved what this plot was based on. Collins has said that her idea for The Hunger Games came from reality TV, and what might happen if it got warped. In a society where it’s almost impossible to avoid reality television, the plot is really contemporary, whilst also having a definite mix of Orwell’s Big Brother in there. Having also read the next two stories before, I know it gets a lot darker, but I’ll review those another time. <spoiler>In the TV context, it’s also really easy to see how anything that boosted ratings (the “star-crossed lovers”) would be extremely powerful. It took me a while to get this, but actually, being torn between Gale and Peeta is quite understandable, given the different extremes she knows both under. I suppose comparisons could be made, but it’s definitely no Twilight.</spoiler>
The pacing of the book is done brilliantly (hence why I’ve read it twice, both taking less than a day!). Collins controls the twists and turns of the plot as adeptly as the gamemakers. The main characters are really multi-faceted, and the important themes – action, politics, and yes, even love – all come out in sometimes unexpected places.
Having also seen the film, I’m really impressed with how well it translated across. Obviously, no film can ever compete with the level of detail and the reader’s own imagination in a book, but it was good. I can’t remember what I thought of casting at the time, but I must admit, I did see Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson in my mind when reading the book this time. This may come across as a backhanded compliment, but Jennifer Lawrence seems to have the right level of awkwardness/social unease in front of the cameras that I associated with Katniss, and also fits the book’s description.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Set in post-apocalyptic America, now known as Panem, the book very quickly sets Katniss, the protagonist, up as a fiercely protective older sister. <spoiler>So protective, she learnt to hunt, barter on the black market and generally help her family survive when their father dies and their mother is overcome by depression. So protective, she volunteers in her sister’s place for the practically suicidal Hunger Games.</spoiler> It’s not long into the book that the reaping takes place, but by the time it does, the reader knows all they need to about who Katniss is, where she’s coming from, and also sets the scene for her dilemma over the coming books. I was rooting for her all the way, and the way Suzanne Collins writes from Katniss’s perspective is extremely effective. I was constantly sympathising with her, while at the same time simply admiring how the cogs in her mind worked in helping her to survive. None of it seemed contrived.
I’m a really big fan of dystopias anyway, but I loved what this plot was based on. Collins has said that her idea for The Hunger Games came from reality TV, and what might happen if it got warped. In a society where it’s almost impossible to avoid reality television, the plot is really contemporary, whilst also having a definite mix of Orwell’s Big Brother in there. Having also read the next two stories before, I know it gets a lot darker, but I’ll review those another time. <spoiler>In the TV context, it’s also really easy to see how anything that boosted ratings (the “star-crossed lovers”) would be extremely powerful. It took me a while to get this, but actually, being torn between Gale and Peeta is quite understandable, given the different extremes she knows both under. I suppose comparisons could be made, but it’s definitely no Twilight.</spoiler>
The pacing of the book is done brilliantly (hence why I’ve read it twice, both taking less than a day!). Collins controls the twists and turns of the plot as adeptly as the gamemakers. The main characters are really multi-faceted, and the important themes – action, politics, and yes, even love – all come out in sometimes unexpected places.
Having also seen the film, I’m really impressed with how well it translated across. Obviously, no film can ever compete with the level of detail and the reader’s own imagination in a book, but it was good. I can’t remember what I thought of casting at the time, but I must admit, I did see Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson in my mind when reading the book this time. This may come across as a backhanded compliment, but Jennifer Lawrence seems to have the right level of awkwardness/social unease in front of the cameras that I associated with Katniss, and also fits the book’s description.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Becs (244 KP) rated Ember Burning in Books
Oct 2, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
I received Ember Burning for an honest review and am just now getting around to do it. My bad…
Okay, so I was honestly really looking forward to reading this novel when I first received it in the mail that I’m kicking myself in the rear end for not picking it up sooner. I was shocked that it was exactly everything I was looking for in a young adult fantasy novel.
It’s got some witchiness to it. It’s got an adventure in it. And it’s got the best thing known to man, love. Fast-paced with well-rounded characters that make you either hate them or love them with a hint of history underlain throughout the novel. What more can I say about this wonderful book?
Genre: Paranormal, Fantasy, Young Adult
Reading Level: High School and up
Interests: Witch’s, Egyptian hieroglyphics, darkness
Style: Not so light but also not a heavy read. Very fast-paced – which I loved.
Difficulty Reading: NO, I could not put this book down. Oh my goodness, Jennifer Alsever has such a unique way of writing. At first, I was a little annoyed that there were so many sentences that could be switched to, ya know, longer sentences which leads to a way easier read. But they grew on me and as I started to get further into the book, I understood why it was written in such a way. Because that is the personality of the main character Ember. It definitely helped understand her more as an individual, rather than just another character in a book.
Promise: A mystery meets fantasy – it delivers.
Insights: Honestly, none. I wouldn’t change anything in Ember Burning even if it meant saving the planet. (Okay, maybe I might change stuff to save the planet. But that’s our home for crying out loud.) Ember Burning is such a well-written novel that leaves you wanting to continue on her journey with her in Oshun Rising and Venus Shining. (Which by the way, is the rest of the series.)
Ah-Ha Moment: WHEN EMBER AND TRE KISS. (Yes, that needed all caps.) Awh man, I love me a good romance. Especially one so sweet and simple like Ember and Tre’s. **SPOILERS AHEAD** I mean it’s such goals to be laying out talking about life and then turning to each other, kissing, and then both admitting that you wanted to do that for a while now. Like OH MY GOD, I’m seriously dying over here. **SPOILERS END** I ship Ember and Tre so hard and Lilly, Zoe or this redhead b**ch better not get in the way of their love. I’ll come after them. (‘I kill you!‘)
Favorite Quote: “Of course I know this is ridiculous. What I’m doing. Going to Trinity Forest. Alone. Like the freak show I am. The girl who goes off the tracks. Who obsesses about missing people, about what happens in Trinity. But the mystery of Trinity calls to me. If I disappear, so be it.” – Girl, you ain’t no freak show. You are so perfectly normal. And if you’re a freak show well, I guess I’m a freak show too.
What will you gain: A love for Ember and her determination to get out of the black vortex known as Trinity Forest. A hate for Zoe’s sweet yet bossy attitude of not giving a shit about anything. A love-hate for Lilly and her psychotic yet charming sides. A love for Tre, my favorite character in the entire novel.
Aesthetics: The cover. The way Tre smiles. The entire book. The way Tre looks. The way Jennifer Alsever describes Synesthesia within Ember’s mind. Have I mentioned Tre and how much I really dig him?
“Would you sacrifice your future to forget your past.”
Okay, so I was honestly really looking forward to reading this novel when I first received it in the mail that I’m kicking myself in the rear end for not picking it up sooner. I was shocked that it was exactly everything I was looking for in a young adult fantasy novel.
It’s got some witchiness to it. It’s got an adventure in it. And it’s got the best thing known to man, love. Fast-paced with well-rounded characters that make you either hate them or love them with a hint of history underlain throughout the novel. What more can I say about this wonderful book?
Genre: Paranormal, Fantasy, Young Adult
Reading Level: High School and up
Interests: Witch’s, Egyptian hieroglyphics, darkness
Style: Not so light but also not a heavy read. Very fast-paced – which I loved.
Difficulty Reading: NO, I could not put this book down. Oh my goodness, Jennifer Alsever has such a unique way of writing. At first, I was a little annoyed that there were so many sentences that could be switched to, ya know, longer sentences which leads to a way easier read. But they grew on me and as I started to get further into the book, I understood why it was written in such a way. Because that is the personality of the main character Ember. It definitely helped understand her more as an individual, rather than just another character in a book.
Promise: A mystery meets fantasy – it delivers.
Insights: Honestly, none. I wouldn’t change anything in Ember Burning even if it meant saving the planet. (Okay, maybe I might change stuff to save the planet. But that’s our home for crying out loud.) Ember Burning is such a well-written novel that leaves you wanting to continue on her journey with her in Oshun Rising and Venus Shining. (Which by the way, is the rest of the series.)
Ah-Ha Moment: WHEN EMBER AND TRE KISS. (Yes, that needed all caps.) Awh man, I love me a good romance. Especially one so sweet and simple like Ember and Tre’s. **SPOILERS AHEAD** I mean it’s such goals to be laying out talking about life and then turning to each other, kissing, and then both admitting that you wanted to do that for a while now. Like OH MY GOD, I’m seriously dying over here. **SPOILERS END** I ship Ember and Tre so hard and Lilly, Zoe or this redhead b**ch better not get in the way of their love. I’ll come after them. (‘I kill you!‘)
Favorite Quote: “Of course I know this is ridiculous. What I’m doing. Going to Trinity Forest. Alone. Like the freak show I am. The girl who goes off the tracks. Who obsesses about missing people, about what happens in Trinity. But the mystery of Trinity calls to me. If I disappear, so be it.” – Girl, you ain’t no freak show. You are so perfectly normal. And if you’re a freak show well, I guess I’m a freak show too.
What will you gain: A love for Ember and her determination to get out of the black vortex known as Trinity Forest. A hate for Zoe’s sweet yet bossy attitude of not giving a shit about anything. A love-hate for Lilly and her psychotic yet charming sides. A love for Tre, my favorite character in the entire novel.
Aesthetics: The cover. The way Tre smiles. The entire book. The way Tre looks. The way Jennifer Alsever describes Synesthesia within Ember’s mind. Have I mentioned Tre and how much I really dig him?
“Would you sacrifice your future to forget your past.”