Search
Ambulance Services: Leadership and Management Perspectives: 2015
Paresh Wankhade and Kevin Mackway-Jones
Book
This volume provides fresh insights and management understanding of the changing role of the...
Tessitura Pro
Music and Education
App
The world of scales and modes just got more interesting! Tessitura Pro is a powerful tool for...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Solo? So-so.
When the whole Disney “broaden out the Star Wars universe” thing was first mooted I was NOT enthusiastic about the prospect. Then, in Christmas 2016 “Rogue One” burst onto our screens as a breath of fresh air, and I thought “OK, I can be wrong!”. But even jolted by that pleasant surprise, I always thought that the second proposed diversion off the main hyperspace highway into “Radiator Springs” – a Han Solo back-story flick – might fall short. It just didn’t float my boat.
Add into that proposition the decision to give the film initially to “The Lego Movie” directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (why Disney? why?); them trying to forge it as a ‘comedy’; them falling horribly short and being fired by Disney; Disney bringing Ron Howard (“Inferno“, “Rush“) in to try to salvage the project; and Howard reportedly re-shooting 75% of the film and you have the makings of a turkey of galactic proportions.
With all that being said, I was surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did. But that’s off a very low base of expectation.
As you might guess, we go back to see Han… just Han… as a delinquent youth trying to keep his head above water under the thrall of the Fagin-like Lady Proxima (who – no pun intended – keeps her head under the water for most of the time). He is desperate to pull off a con that’s lucrative enough that it will get him and his girlfriend Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke, “Me Before You“; “Terminator: Genisys“; “Game of Thrones”) off-planet and into a free life. Things don’t go to plan though and Han – now Han Solo – finds himself a trooper of the Galactic Empire. He links up with fellow rogues Beckett (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“; “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri“), Val (Thandie Newton, “Westworld”, “2012”), Rio (voiced by Jon Favreau, “Spider-Man: Homecoming“; “Iron Man Three“) and their assertive and rebellious droid L3-37 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge) in a get-rich-or-die mission for vicious gang-boss Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany, “Avengers: Infinity War“).
The film has its moments for sure:
There are some nice background touches: an army recruitment video plays to the sound of John William’s empire march (played I am assured by my more musical wife in a major key to sound more uplifting and positive!);
Han’s first meeting with that famous walking carpet (played by Joonas Suotamo) is memorable, as is the introduction to that “card player, gambler and scoundrel” Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover, “The Martian“, “Spider-Man: Homecoming“): all flamboyance, self-regard and well-dressed ego;
solo2
Never count your money while you’re sitting at the table. Lando Calrissian played by Donald Glover putting his ship (you probably haven’t heard of it) on the line. (Source: Lucasfilm).
the character of L3-37 is an excellent addition to the saga, forcefully demanding equality for droids: I would have liked to have seen much more of her;
there is a nice twist on the Greedo/Han “who shot first” debate;
production design and special effects are up to standard for a Star Wars film, and I enjoyed John Powell’s score, incorporating a new ‘young Han’ theme from John Williams himself;
and Erin Kellyman (in here movie debut) is just breathtaking and strikingly brilliant as the be-freckled renegade Enfys Nest.
But overall it’s all a bit disjointed and jumbled, probably as befits its growing pains. We are introduced to Solo within five seconds of the film’s opening….. BAM! No exquisite ‘reveal’ as we saw with River Phoenix in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. I found this disconcerting and it took me ten minutes to get into the film as a result.
When it gets going it rather tries too hard to join up more Star Wars dots than it needs to. “Rogue One” did that exceedingly well, but that was because it needed to as ‘Episode 3.5’. Here there are visual and verbal references everywhere as the screenwriters (Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan) desperately try to knit their story into the canon. As an example, the action moves to the mines of Kessel at one point. Kessel? Kessel? Wasn’t that a throwaway C3PO line from the “A New Hope” about being “smashed to who knows what” in said mines?. So obviously, in the WHOLE GALAXY that’s where the story leads us, with the local lingo for the hyperspace fuel McGuffin at the heart of the plot being “spice”! It’s all a bit too trite for my liking.
And while a key protagonist appearing near the end of the film (no spoilers) is both a startling surprise and great fun, don’t get me started on the timeline implications…. (see the spoiler section below the trailer for more).
Alden Ehrenreich, who was just brilliant in “Hail Caesar” (“Was that it t’WERRRE so simple“) for me barely makes it past bland in the lead role. One of the defining characteristics of Harrison Ford’s Solo was his swagger and bravado and unfortunately Ehrenreich barely rates a three out of ten on the scale. I also found the chemistry with Emelia Clarke to be lukewarm. Clarke still seems to be struggling to make a significant breakthrough to the big screen…. “Me Before You” still seems to be her high water mark so far. Here she has a key and complex role, but comes over as just plain unconvincing and “meh”.
Ron Howard has clearly done a good job in buffing up a poisoned chalice so it can at least share space on the Star Wars shelf without being laughed out of the Cantina. Perhaps with a more coordinated and thought-through run-up to a Solo sequel (more Enfys Nest please!) this offshoot might have legs.
Add into that proposition the decision to give the film initially to “The Lego Movie” directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (why Disney? why?); them trying to forge it as a ‘comedy’; them falling horribly short and being fired by Disney; Disney bringing Ron Howard (“Inferno“, “Rush“) in to try to salvage the project; and Howard reportedly re-shooting 75% of the film and you have the makings of a turkey of galactic proportions.
With all that being said, I was surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did. But that’s off a very low base of expectation.
As you might guess, we go back to see Han… just Han… as a delinquent youth trying to keep his head above water under the thrall of the Fagin-like Lady Proxima (who – no pun intended – keeps her head under the water for most of the time). He is desperate to pull off a con that’s lucrative enough that it will get him and his girlfriend Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke, “Me Before You“; “Terminator: Genisys“; “Game of Thrones”) off-planet and into a free life. Things don’t go to plan though and Han – now Han Solo – finds himself a trooper of the Galactic Empire. He links up with fellow rogues Beckett (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“; “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri“), Val (Thandie Newton, “Westworld”, “2012”), Rio (voiced by Jon Favreau, “Spider-Man: Homecoming“; “Iron Man Three“) and their assertive and rebellious droid L3-37 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge) in a get-rich-or-die mission for vicious gang-boss Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany, “Avengers: Infinity War“).
The film has its moments for sure:
There are some nice background touches: an army recruitment video plays to the sound of John William’s empire march (played I am assured by my more musical wife in a major key to sound more uplifting and positive!);
Han’s first meeting with that famous walking carpet (played by Joonas Suotamo) is memorable, as is the introduction to that “card player, gambler and scoundrel” Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover, “The Martian“, “Spider-Man: Homecoming“): all flamboyance, self-regard and well-dressed ego;
solo2
Never count your money while you’re sitting at the table. Lando Calrissian played by Donald Glover putting his ship (you probably haven’t heard of it) on the line. (Source: Lucasfilm).
the character of L3-37 is an excellent addition to the saga, forcefully demanding equality for droids: I would have liked to have seen much more of her;
there is a nice twist on the Greedo/Han “who shot first” debate;
production design and special effects are up to standard for a Star Wars film, and I enjoyed John Powell’s score, incorporating a new ‘young Han’ theme from John Williams himself;
and Erin Kellyman (in here movie debut) is just breathtaking and strikingly brilliant as the be-freckled renegade Enfys Nest.
But overall it’s all a bit disjointed and jumbled, probably as befits its growing pains. We are introduced to Solo within five seconds of the film’s opening….. BAM! No exquisite ‘reveal’ as we saw with River Phoenix in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. I found this disconcerting and it took me ten minutes to get into the film as a result.
When it gets going it rather tries too hard to join up more Star Wars dots than it needs to. “Rogue One” did that exceedingly well, but that was because it needed to as ‘Episode 3.5’. Here there are visual and verbal references everywhere as the screenwriters (Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan) desperately try to knit their story into the canon. As an example, the action moves to the mines of Kessel at one point. Kessel? Kessel? Wasn’t that a throwaway C3PO line from the “A New Hope” about being “smashed to who knows what” in said mines?. So obviously, in the WHOLE GALAXY that’s where the story leads us, with the local lingo for the hyperspace fuel McGuffin at the heart of the plot being “spice”! It’s all a bit too trite for my liking.
And while a key protagonist appearing near the end of the film (no spoilers) is both a startling surprise and great fun, don’t get me started on the timeline implications…. (see the spoiler section below the trailer for more).
Alden Ehrenreich, who was just brilliant in “Hail Caesar” (“Was that it t’WERRRE so simple“) for me barely makes it past bland in the lead role. One of the defining characteristics of Harrison Ford’s Solo was his swagger and bravado and unfortunately Ehrenreich barely rates a three out of ten on the scale. I also found the chemistry with Emelia Clarke to be lukewarm. Clarke still seems to be struggling to make a significant breakthrough to the big screen…. “Me Before You” still seems to be her high water mark so far. Here she has a key and complex role, but comes over as just plain unconvincing and “meh”.
Ron Howard has clearly done a good job in buffing up a poisoned chalice so it can at least share space on the Star Wars shelf without being laughed out of the Cantina. Perhaps with a more coordinated and thought-through run-up to a Solo sequel (more Enfys Nest please!) this offshoot might have legs.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Agile Innovation: The Revolutionary Approach to Accelerate Success, Inspire Engagement, and Ignite Creativity
Langdon Morris, Moses Ma and Po-chi Wu
Book
Find your company's unique innovation style, and nurture it into a powerful competitive advantage...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Redemption in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I did not read the first book in the series, Protector, but that did not seem to matter all that much in reading this book. I caught up relatively easily to what the author felt I needed to know about Jane Perry's story so that I could dive into the action-packed, suspense-filled plot of this book.
One of the first things I noticed about the main character of Jane Perry is both her seemingly-abrasive personality, complete with a foul mouth, and her battle with alcoholism. Throughout the book, her strong personality is both her greatest strength and her biggest weakness. Her daily battle to remain sober - pushing six months - is also a prominent theme, complete with AA meetings, sobriety chips, and the 12-step program. I found these details interesting from the educational standpoint, since I have known a few alcoholics, both recovering and not, but nothing about the process of recovery from this horrible addiction.
The woman that hires Jane Perry, Katherine Clark (better known as Kit), is in many ways the very opposite of Jane. A woman in her 60's, she describes her personality as that of an "earth mother". Dealing with stage 4 cancer, she is a strict adherent of New Age philosophies and herbal medicine to treat both her cancer and her particular brand of spirituality. In addition, several of the plot's "bad guys" were followers of a particular sect of Fundamentalist Christianity that Kit spends an overt amount of time condemning, despite her many lectures of tolerance, love, and forgiveness. This in turn incites Jane to regularly mock Fundamentalist Christianity by proxy.
While I realize that radicals of any religion are easy fodder for mainstream literature, the personal beliefs of the author completely overpower the actual plot of the book. It is patently obvious that Dewey is a major supporter of all things New Age, with a penchant for Buddhism, and is completely against a literal translation of the Bible. As I have said in previous reviews, a good author is invisible to the reader, but in this book, the author often felt more present in the plot than the actual characters the book was intended to be about - some sort of amalgamation of Jane and Kit. Despite the good intentions that I am sure Dewey harbors in writing in this fashion, I became rather depressed by the end of the book by the over-saturation of Dewey's agenda of New Ageism versus Christianity, as the book became less and less about the heroics of Jane Perry and more about the beliefs of Laurel Dewey.
While I acknowledge that I do not agree with everything within the particular doctrines of the character of Dr. John Bartosh, I do consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian, a person who believes in both the literal and figurative translation of the Bible. For the author to expect me, the reader, to not even be slightly offended by the condemnation and open mockery of what I consider to be the foundation of my morality and how I live my life on a daily basis is both presumptuous and insensitive.
Despite this, the book was well-written from a literary approach, with unique characters, an unpredictable plot, and no loose ends.
One of the first things I noticed about the main character of Jane Perry is both her seemingly-abrasive personality, complete with a foul mouth, and her battle with alcoholism. Throughout the book, her strong personality is both her greatest strength and her biggest weakness. Her daily battle to remain sober - pushing six months - is also a prominent theme, complete with AA meetings, sobriety chips, and the 12-step program. I found these details interesting from the educational standpoint, since I have known a few alcoholics, both recovering and not, but nothing about the process of recovery from this horrible addiction.
The woman that hires Jane Perry, Katherine Clark (better known as Kit), is in many ways the very opposite of Jane. A woman in her 60's, she describes her personality as that of an "earth mother". Dealing with stage 4 cancer, she is a strict adherent of New Age philosophies and herbal medicine to treat both her cancer and her particular brand of spirituality. In addition, several of the plot's "bad guys" were followers of a particular sect of Fundamentalist Christianity that Kit spends an overt amount of time condemning, despite her many lectures of tolerance, love, and forgiveness. This in turn incites Jane to regularly mock Fundamentalist Christianity by proxy.
While I realize that radicals of any religion are easy fodder for mainstream literature, the personal beliefs of the author completely overpower the actual plot of the book. It is patently obvious that Dewey is a major supporter of all things New Age, with a penchant for Buddhism, and is completely against a literal translation of the Bible. As I have said in previous reviews, a good author is invisible to the reader, but in this book, the author often felt more present in the plot than the actual characters the book was intended to be about - some sort of amalgamation of Jane and Kit. Despite the good intentions that I am sure Dewey harbors in writing in this fashion, I became rather depressed by the end of the book by the over-saturation of Dewey's agenda of New Ageism versus Christianity, as the book became less and less about the heroics of Jane Perry and more about the beliefs of Laurel Dewey.
While I acknowledge that I do not agree with everything within the particular doctrines of the character of Dr. John Bartosh, I do consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian, a person who believes in both the literal and figurative translation of the Bible. For the author to expect me, the reader, to not even be slightly offended by the condemnation and open mockery of what I consider to be the foundation of my morality and how I live my life on a daily basis is both presumptuous and insensitive.
Despite this, the book was well-written from a literary approach, with unique characters, an unpredictable plot, and no loose ends.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated I Will Find You in Books
Jan 9, 2020
I Will Find You by John M. Taylor is a painfully beautiful story of one boys love for his mother and his journey to be reunited with her. He travels from England to Australia and spends some time in the outback as well as aboard ships before returning home.
Nick Thorne, once Robbie Spalding lived in England where his father was part of the Airforce during the war. When his fathers plane is shot down his mother joins the Land Army but she falls and suffers a major injurer. Nick is taken to an orphanage temporarily and only learns of his mothers death when he is told he is being sent to a family in Australia. When he gets to Australia he finds no family is waiting, instead, he is taken to Clontarf where the Brothers beat, neglect, and abuse the boys. When Nick turned thirteen he was sent to a Church Farm to work but it was just like Clontarf, it was here that he managed to escape.
With the help of an Aboriginal boy, Gidga, Nick survives the Australian outback and makes his way to the Aboriginals village. Even though Nick likes the Aboriginal people he still believes his mother is alive and leaves to go find her. His journey is not an easy one as he signs on with fishing ships, understanding that he wont be able to do anything without money. Most of the time it appears that he will never find anything out about his parents or his past because it seems that none of the departments he is directed to can help him. To make matters worse no one wants to take responsibility for his old records. In a final attempt to find anything out Nick goes back to his old hometown in England.
I enjoyed all the twists and surprises in Nicks life. I wanted to keep reading to find out where Nick would find himself and who he would meet there. Nick is also the type of character where the reader is emotionally connected to his story right away. What I did not care for was the fact that there was a joke on page two hundred and eighty that I did not understand at all. While that does not affect my overall opinion of the book I feel I am not the only one confused. Also when Nick starts trying to track down his records things get very repetitive. I can only imagine the frustration he felt as I was frustrated by just reading it over again multiple times.
The book is designed with adult readers in mind. There were numerous events in the book such as boys having to share a bed with one of their caretakers or being beaten to the point of passing out that was hard to read. With that in mind, this book is more suited for mature readers. Overall I give this book a rating of 4 out of 4. This book offers tragedy and hope at the same time. The back of the book even offers some factual information about what happened to other children like Nick who were sent to Australia.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
Nick Thorne, once Robbie Spalding lived in England where his father was part of the Airforce during the war. When his fathers plane is shot down his mother joins the Land Army but she falls and suffers a major injurer. Nick is taken to an orphanage temporarily and only learns of his mothers death when he is told he is being sent to a family in Australia. When he gets to Australia he finds no family is waiting, instead, he is taken to Clontarf where the Brothers beat, neglect, and abuse the boys. When Nick turned thirteen he was sent to a Church Farm to work but it was just like Clontarf, it was here that he managed to escape.
With the help of an Aboriginal boy, Gidga, Nick survives the Australian outback and makes his way to the Aboriginals village. Even though Nick likes the Aboriginal people he still believes his mother is alive and leaves to go find her. His journey is not an easy one as he signs on with fishing ships, understanding that he wont be able to do anything without money. Most of the time it appears that he will never find anything out about his parents or his past because it seems that none of the departments he is directed to can help him. To make matters worse no one wants to take responsibility for his old records. In a final attempt to find anything out Nick goes back to his old hometown in England.
I enjoyed all the twists and surprises in Nicks life. I wanted to keep reading to find out where Nick would find himself and who he would meet there. Nick is also the type of character where the reader is emotionally connected to his story right away. What I did not care for was the fact that there was a joke on page two hundred and eighty that I did not understand at all. While that does not affect my overall opinion of the book I feel I am not the only one confused. Also when Nick starts trying to track down his records things get very repetitive. I can only imagine the frustration he felt as I was frustrated by just reading it over again multiple times.
The book is designed with adult readers in mind. There were numerous events in the book such as boys having to share a bed with one of their caretakers or being beaten to the point of passing out that was hard to read. With that in mind, this book is more suited for mature readers. Overall I give this book a rating of 4 out of 4. This book offers tragedy and hope at the same time. The back of the book even offers some factual information about what happened to other children like Nick who were sent to Australia.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com