Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated La La Land (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“It’s very nostalgic – will people like it?”
A little film. Not sure whether you might have heard of it yet? Damien Chazelle has followed up his astonishingly proficient “Whiplash” – my top film of 2015 – with a sure-fire theatre-filler in “La La Land”. The old-fashioned musical extravaganza is back, and back with style!
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021 (Updated Dec 14, 2021)
Taika Waititi. (2 more)
The cameos.
Impressive special effects.
Not as funny as it could have been. (2 more)
Love being the "hokey" solution.
Mouser.
Artificial Excellence
Filmed in 2019 and finally seeing release after five separate delays from its original July 2020 premiere date, Free Guy is a sci-fi action comedy directed by Shawn Levy (Real Steal, the Night at the Museum trilogy) and written by Matt Lieberman (Scoob!) and Zak Penn (Ready Player One), which follows the life of Guy (Ryan Reynolds), an NPC that and lives and works as a bank teller in Free City.
Completely content with every day being exactly the same as the day before, Guy’s life is changed forever following a chance encounter with a ‘Sunglasses Person’ (the film’s term for player characters) named Molotov Girl (Jodie Comer).
An homage to Grand Theft Auto’s Vice City, with some elements from Fortnite sprinkled in for good measure, Free City is located within a video game of the same name, and boasts a population of various NPCs (non-player characters) as they go through their daily routines completely unaware that they’re stuck within the confines of a video game.
These NPCs cater to the whim of the Sunglasses People, who are seen as unapproachable heroes, but in actuality are just players from the real world who want to loot, steal, and cause chaos in order to achieve virtual richness in free city.
Ryan Reynolds’ real-life demeanor and sense of humor are so similar to his portrayal of Deadpool that almost anything Reynolds has done since 2016 has undoubtedly reminded you of The Merc With A Mouth.
To that end, in Free Guy, Reynolds’ narration of his own story, combined with the film’s explosive action, will definitely have filmgoers reminiscing about Marvel’s pair of R-rated X-men spin-offs – an inevitable circumstance of being a successful actor and allowing oneself to be typecast into roles similar to their most popular one.
While there are some laugh out loud moments in Free Guy, the “Oh, he found the button,” scene being the most notable, the film simply isn’t as funny as you think it’s going to be.
There’s no arguing that Free Guy is amusing to a certain extent, but its repeated gags and attempts at humor, more often than not, fall flat. Taika Waititi’s Antwan character, the man calling the shots when it comes to Free City’s game development, is a highlight of the film.
However, the promotional clip of Waititi’s outtakes released to hype the film, whose content supposedly made it into the film (spoiler alert: they didn’t), is better than any of Antwan’s actual lines of dialogue in the theatrical cut.
The cameos in Free Guy are some of the best surprises to stumble onto while seeing the film. They won’t be spoiled here, though some of them have been spoiled on the internet already, but there are a couple of really fun ones that are so much more entertaining if you go in not expecting them.
In fact, one of the lengthier such cameos, which extends across multiple scenes and features in several minutes of screen time, is a major source for hilarity in Free Guy.
The premise of Free Guy a A background character in a video game becomes sentient – is its most promising aspect. Guy, motivated by a desire to get more out of life than the daily routine he’s accustomed to, essentially betters himself simply because he wants to. In a way, it’s an I, Robot kind of concept burrito’d within a world that would fit within the walls of Ready Player One.
Surprisingly, given its filming before the outbreak of the pandemic, the film is also extremely relatable to how our reality is still under the thumb of an unpredictable coronavirus. Guy being trapped within the walls of Free City and wanting more out of life is an awfully similar sentiment to wanting everything back to normal after being stuck in months-long lockdowns.
Yet, Free Guy’s solid special effects, absurd humor, and surprisingly effective cameos are nearly derailed by how much time it devotes to the its love story.
Guy’s big awakening all comes down to finding the girl of his dreams, which then branches off into a different sort of relationship in the real world that was right under two character’s noses from the start. It feels like it was meant to be this sort of revelation in the film, but comes off as this, “Duh,” moment anyone besides the writers could have predicted.
Speaking of the film’s writing, the character of Mouser (Utkarsh Ambudkar) is so poorly written that it’s unbearable and exhausting.
A developer working alongside Antwan and Keys (Joe Kerry), Mouser comes off a rival to the later, acting like he can do Keys’ job better than Keys can and constantly breaking his balls from the moment he is introduced. Throughout the film, Mouser wants to do nothing more than whatever Antwan says, even if it’s morally reprehensible.
But, predictably, in the film’s final moments, Mouser is suddenly Keys’ best friend, wanting to do what’s right all for the sake of a happy ending.
Ultimately, while Free Guy has an amazing concept, it’s trapped within a massively underwhelming execution.
Admittedly, the film looks like it was an absolute blast to make, but also incredibly expensive. This tall budget, combined with public hesitancy to return to theaters and the Delta variant of COVID seemingly on the verge of backtracking all the progress we’ve made since the vaccine became readily available to the public, it makes you wonder if Free Guy has any sort of chance of making a respectable amount of money at the box office or even just breaking even.
Note: This was originally written when the film opened in theaters. Free Guy would go on to make $331.5 million on a $100-$125 million budget. A sequel is currently in the works.
Completely content with every day being exactly the same as the day before, Guy’s life is changed forever following a chance encounter with a ‘Sunglasses Person’ (the film’s term for player characters) named Molotov Girl (Jodie Comer).
An homage to Grand Theft Auto’s Vice City, with some elements from Fortnite sprinkled in for good measure, Free City is located within a video game of the same name, and boasts a population of various NPCs (non-player characters) as they go through their daily routines completely unaware that they’re stuck within the confines of a video game.
These NPCs cater to the whim of the Sunglasses People, who are seen as unapproachable heroes, but in actuality are just players from the real world who want to loot, steal, and cause chaos in order to achieve virtual richness in free city.
Ryan Reynolds’ real-life demeanor and sense of humor are so similar to his portrayal of Deadpool that almost anything Reynolds has done since 2016 has undoubtedly reminded you of The Merc With A Mouth.
To that end, in Free Guy, Reynolds’ narration of his own story, combined with the film’s explosive action, will definitely have filmgoers reminiscing about Marvel’s pair of R-rated X-men spin-offs – an inevitable circumstance of being a successful actor and allowing oneself to be typecast into roles similar to their most popular one.
While there are some laugh out loud moments in Free Guy, the “Oh, he found the button,” scene being the most notable, the film simply isn’t as funny as you think it’s going to be.
There’s no arguing that Free Guy is amusing to a certain extent, but its repeated gags and attempts at humor, more often than not, fall flat. Taika Waititi’s Antwan character, the man calling the shots when it comes to Free City’s game development, is a highlight of the film.
However, the promotional clip of Waititi’s outtakes released to hype the film, whose content supposedly made it into the film (spoiler alert: they didn’t), is better than any of Antwan’s actual lines of dialogue in the theatrical cut.
The cameos in Free Guy are some of the best surprises to stumble onto while seeing the film. They won’t be spoiled here, though some of them have been spoiled on the internet already, but there are a couple of really fun ones that are so much more entertaining if you go in not expecting them.
In fact, one of the lengthier such cameos, which extends across multiple scenes and features in several minutes of screen time, is a major source for hilarity in Free Guy.
The premise of Free Guy a A background character in a video game becomes sentient – is its most promising aspect. Guy, motivated by a desire to get more out of life than the daily routine he’s accustomed to, essentially betters himself simply because he wants to. In a way, it’s an I, Robot kind of concept burrito’d within a world that would fit within the walls of Ready Player One.
Surprisingly, given its filming before the outbreak of the pandemic, the film is also extremely relatable to how our reality is still under the thumb of an unpredictable coronavirus. Guy being trapped within the walls of Free City and wanting more out of life is an awfully similar sentiment to wanting everything back to normal after being stuck in months-long lockdowns.
Yet, Free Guy’s solid special effects, absurd humor, and surprisingly effective cameos are nearly derailed by how much time it devotes to the its love story.
Guy’s big awakening all comes down to finding the girl of his dreams, which then branches off into a different sort of relationship in the real world that was right under two character’s noses from the start. It feels like it was meant to be this sort of revelation in the film, but comes off as this, “Duh,” moment anyone besides the writers could have predicted.
Speaking of the film’s writing, the character of Mouser (Utkarsh Ambudkar) is so poorly written that it’s unbearable and exhausting.
A developer working alongside Antwan and Keys (Joe Kerry), Mouser comes off a rival to the later, acting like he can do Keys’ job better than Keys can and constantly breaking his balls from the moment he is introduced. Throughout the film, Mouser wants to do nothing more than whatever Antwan says, even if it’s morally reprehensible.
But, predictably, in the film’s final moments, Mouser is suddenly Keys’ best friend, wanting to do what’s right all for the sake of a happy ending.
Ultimately, while Free Guy has an amazing concept, it’s trapped within a massively underwhelming execution.
Admittedly, the film looks like it was an absolute blast to make, but also incredibly expensive. This tall budget, combined with public hesitancy to return to theaters and the Delta variant of COVID seemingly on the verge of backtracking all the progress we’ve made since the vaccine became readily available to the public, it makes you wonder if Free Guy has any sort of chance of making a respectable amount of money at the box office or even just breaking even.
Note: This was originally written when the film opened in theaters. Free Guy would go on to make $331.5 million on a $100-$125 million budget. A sequel is currently in the works.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb in Books
Apr 13, 2019
"The crime itself was indefensible. The brilliant, spoiled and bored sons of two of Chicago's wealthiest families planned to commit the perfect crime both for the thrill of and to prove their perverse misunderstanding of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of the 'superman,' who was above all law so long as he made no mistake. Their plan, worked out over several months, was to kidnap and immediately kill one of their younger neighbors and hide his body. They would then demand and collect a ransom. The body would never be discovered, the crime would never be solved and only they would know that they had prevailed over ordinary human beings and their simple-minded legal system. But far from being the 'perfect crime,' the murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks turned out to be amateurishly botched. Before any ransom could be paid, the boy's body was discovered in a culvert near where Nathan Leopold often went bird-watching. A pair of telltale glasses were found adjacent to the body. They were easily traced to Leopold who first came up with a paper-thin alibi and soon thereafter confessed to the crime. His fellow murderer likewise confessed. Each of the 'superboys' placed blame for the actual killing on the other." - Alan M. Dershowitz
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Cosmic Run: Regeneration in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
Space – the Final Frontier. Well, not anymore. You’re living in the year 2123, and space travel is not a novel idea. In fact, Earth has become uninhabitable, and the human race must find a new planet to call home! You and your team of explorers have taken to the galaxies to find a suitable replacement for the future of mankind. By befriending aliens and outmaneuvering rival explorers, your team will be credited with the discovery of new colonies on these distant planets. It’s a literal Space Race, so kick on that hyper-drive and take to the stars!
Cosmic Run: Regeneration is a competitive or cooperative dice-rolling game in which players are racing to earn the most victory points by being the first to discover new planets. It’s a Yahtzee-style push-your-luck game where you must roll certain sets of identical dice to advance your ships on the individual planet tracks. Dice can also be used to ‘hire’ aliens or find crystals, which can give you special abilities once per game. The planets must be discovered in a timely manner, though, because passing meteors could cause damage to, or even completely destroy, these planets – this is space, after all. Players earn victory points in three ways – by being the first to discover a planet, based on their position on a planet’s track if they are not the first to discover it, or by retiring sets of aliens. The player with the most victory points once all 6 planets are discovered is the winner! When playing solo, the game is played essentially the same way, with some minor differences. If the solo player discovers all 6 planets before any one is destroyed or before the meteor deck runs out, they win! However, if even a single planet is destroyed or they are not all discovered before the meteor deck runs out, the solo player loses.
I enjoy playing Cosmic Run: Regeneration as a solo game because it’s simple, but not easy. You’re just rolling dice, but you need a strategy. Do you try to advance quickly on the easiest tracks, or do you commit dice to more difficult tracks and hope that the dice rolls will be on your side? Be careful – once you commit a die to a certain track, it cannot be moved. I’ve played so many games where I commit dice to Planet 2 (2-of-a-kind) and end up rolling 3 more of the same number that could’ve been used on Planet 5 (5-of-a-kind) if I’d just committed them there in the first place! A lot of the game is dependent on the luck of the roll, but I feel like you still need a solid strategy to be successful. There’s a good balance between the two – I still feel like I’m in control of the game even though I can’t control how the dice will roll.
The one main difference between solo and group play is that the solo player is allowed to spend VPs to create ‘forcefields’ around planets. This is because in group play if a planet is destroyed, players score points for their track progress, and the game continues. For the solo player, however, if a planet is destroyed, the game is over. When playing solo, I can choose to spend either 5 or 10 VPs to create a forcefield around either 1 or all planets to protect them from meteors for one turn. Without this option in solo play, it would be impossible to win. The first 4 cards of the meteor deck are guaranteed to hit 4 different planets, so right off the bat you are starting at kind of a disadvantage. Each planet only takes 3 hits to be destroyed, so depending on how well the meteor deck is shuffled, the game would be over quickly if I weren’t able to create forcefields. It all comes back to strategy – you have to decide when to spend those VPs and what planets need protecting at any given point in the game.
That being said, scoring VPs is not really easy in solo play. To score points for a planet, you have to physically reach the planet surface – and that can take a while depending on how well you are rolling. You can hire/retire aliens for VPs, but alien cards have a die cost, so if you are hiring aliens all the time, those are dice you are not using to advance on planet tracks. And each turn, planets get closer to destruction if you don’t advance on their tracks fast enough. You can earn VPs when you land on a VP token space – you do not pick up the token if you pass it, you must land exactly on it. So all in all, you can’t afford to protect every planet every turn. You have to strategize carefully about how to risk your hard-earned VPs. The most frustrating thing is when I pay VPs to protect a planet that isn’t even the one that gets hit! 5 VPs gone that I usually can’t get back in a single turn. But that’s all part of the push-your-luck isn’t it? There’s no reward without risk, and sometimes it’s better to be safe than sorry. I’m usually not a very risky game player, but in this game I have to be. Playing it safe is not an option when I’m racing against the meteor deck.
Cosmic Run: Regeneration is a game of strategy with some healthy helpings of luck and risk-taking. You need a solid strategy, but one that is flexible enough to adapt to your dice rolls on any given turn. No game is a guaranteed win – if I win it’s usually at the last possible second. This game is easy to play, but not necessarily easy to win and that’s what keeps me coming back to play. Even as a solo game, it’s engaging and I think it’s pretty fun too!
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/solo-chronicles-cosmic-run-regeneration/
Space – the Final Frontier. Well, not anymore. You’re living in the year 2123, and space travel is not a novel idea. In fact, Earth has become uninhabitable, and the human race must find a new planet to call home! You and your team of explorers have taken to the galaxies to find a suitable replacement for the future of mankind. By befriending aliens and outmaneuvering rival explorers, your team will be credited with the discovery of new colonies on these distant planets. It’s a literal Space Race, so kick on that hyper-drive and take to the stars!
Cosmic Run: Regeneration is a competitive or cooperative dice-rolling game in which players are racing to earn the most victory points by being the first to discover new planets. It’s a Yahtzee-style push-your-luck game where you must roll certain sets of identical dice to advance your ships on the individual planet tracks. Dice can also be used to ‘hire’ aliens or find crystals, which can give you special abilities once per game. The planets must be discovered in a timely manner, though, because passing meteors could cause damage to, or even completely destroy, these planets – this is space, after all. Players earn victory points in three ways – by being the first to discover a planet, based on their position on a planet’s track if they are not the first to discover it, or by retiring sets of aliens. The player with the most victory points once all 6 planets are discovered is the winner! When playing solo, the game is played essentially the same way, with some minor differences. If the solo player discovers all 6 planets before any one is destroyed or before the meteor deck runs out, they win! However, if even a single planet is destroyed or they are not all discovered before the meteor deck runs out, the solo player loses.
I enjoy playing Cosmic Run: Regeneration as a solo game because it’s simple, but not easy. You’re just rolling dice, but you need a strategy. Do you try to advance quickly on the easiest tracks, or do you commit dice to more difficult tracks and hope that the dice rolls will be on your side? Be careful – once you commit a die to a certain track, it cannot be moved. I’ve played so many games where I commit dice to Planet 2 (2-of-a-kind) and end up rolling 3 more of the same number that could’ve been used on Planet 5 (5-of-a-kind) if I’d just committed them there in the first place! A lot of the game is dependent on the luck of the roll, but I feel like you still need a solid strategy to be successful. There’s a good balance between the two – I still feel like I’m in control of the game even though I can’t control how the dice will roll.
The one main difference between solo and group play is that the solo player is allowed to spend VPs to create ‘forcefields’ around planets. This is because in group play if a planet is destroyed, players score points for their track progress, and the game continues. For the solo player, however, if a planet is destroyed, the game is over. When playing solo, I can choose to spend either 5 or 10 VPs to create a forcefield around either 1 or all planets to protect them from meteors for one turn. Without this option in solo play, it would be impossible to win. The first 4 cards of the meteor deck are guaranteed to hit 4 different planets, so right off the bat you are starting at kind of a disadvantage. Each planet only takes 3 hits to be destroyed, so depending on how well the meteor deck is shuffled, the game would be over quickly if I weren’t able to create forcefields. It all comes back to strategy – you have to decide when to spend those VPs and what planets need protecting at any given point in the game.
That being said, scoring VPs is not really easy in solo play. To score points for a planet, you have to physically reach the planet surface – and that can take a while depending on how well you are rolling. You can hire/retire aliens for VPs, but alien cards have a die cost, so if you are hiring aliens all the time, those are dice you are not using to advance on planet tracks. And each turn, planets get closer to destruction if you don’t advance on their tracks fast enough. You can earn VPs when you land on a VP token space – you do not pick up the token if you pass it, you must land exactly on it. So all in all, you can’t afford to protect every planet every turn. You have to strategize carefully about how to risk your hard-earned VPs. The most frustrating thing is when I pay VPs to protect a planet that isn’t even the one that gets hit! 5 VPs gone that I usually can’t get back in a single turn. But that’s all part of the push-your-luck isn’t it? There’s no reward without risk, and sometimes it’s better to be safe than sorry. I’m usually not a very risky game player, but in this game I have to be. Playing it safe is not an option when I’m racing against the meteor deck.
Cosmic Run: Regeneration is a game of strategy with some healthy helpings of luck and risk-taking. You need a solid strategy, but one that is flexible enough to adapt to your dice rolls on any given turn. No game is a guaranteed win – if I win it’s usually at the last possible second. This game is easy to play, but not necessarily easy to win and that’s what keeps me coming back to play. Even as a solo game, it’s engaging and I think it’s pretty fun too!
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/solo-chronicles-cosmic-run-regeneration/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Expanse in TV
Sep 4, 2020 (Updated Feb 11, 2021)
In this particular future, where there exists a cold war tension between the splintered factions of humanity across the solar system, all is not well. Earthers, Dusters (Martians) and Skinnies (Belters) compete for resources and political strength in an ever shifting landscape of trust and betrayal. It is a sci-fi geek’s paradise, full of believable tech, an extensive character list and jargon coming out of the wazoo! It’s all very complicated… and season five just finished airing on Amazon Prime on Wednesday 3rd Feb, so I thought it a good time to talk about it in detail.
Based on the novel series by James S. A. Corey (actually the assumed name of collaborators Ty Franck and Daniel Abraham), which began in 2011 and has produced one book a year since, the TV version has been on the go since 2015, first at SyFy and then at Amazon after being cancelled unfairly, and to mass uproar from the fans, after Season three. It isn’t something you watch casually – either you are into it and make a point of obsessing about it, or you watch a few, feel completely lost and admit it isn’t for you; although you suspect it is good and you just didn’t make the effort to engage enough. Sci-fi this earnest can be like that: a little unforgiving to tourists and passers-by.
Personally, I went through 2 phases with it. The first was watching it late at night with autoplay on, falling in and out of sleep depending on how exciting what was happening was, missing a lot of the detail and feeling largely lost in space. The second was coming back to Season 4 recently (about 3 weeks ago), after taking in a full recap of the story, and becoming a true fan that couldn’t get enough of the complex web of storylines, motives and personalities. Catching up enough to have to wait a week between episodes for the last 4 weeks, which has been tremendously rewarding.
Not that I had a major problem with it from the start. I thought it had a great look and a great mood about it, but lacked some star quality in the cast and was fairly opaque storywise. It always had potential. It was a question of whether you could be bothered to invest in that, knowing that it may go nowhere or even get cancelled very quickly – the TV universe is not known for being kind to sci-fi, as die-hard fans of Firefly still weep about regularly, and quite correctly.
In season one you watch it for the only person onboard that you have heard of, namely Thomas Jane (from The Mist and The Punisher) as det. Joe Miller, a cynical sleuth complete with a great anachronistic hat, who gets wrapped up in a mystery so mysterious it is often hard to work out what he is doing at all, and why… he literally comes and goes, for reasons that become apparent in later seasons. A frustrating and yet fascinating entity that must have been a real test to get right.
The show’s main cast also take a lot of time to warm up, to the point where you wonder who they are and whether they will be in it for long? Steven Strait, Dominique Tipper, Wes Chatham and Cas Anvar, as the ragtag collective of a small ship (they eventually name The Rocinante) that finds itself at the centre of a huge political shitstorm as the last bastion of impartial hope and moral reasoning, exude such little charisma at first it all seems doomed to fail. But, something magical begins to happen, by virtue of being in their presence a lot – you start to care. And the more you care the more the subsequent events have the power to stun you sideways!
More than anything else I can think of in recent years, this is a show that rewards patient investment. You will have definite moments of wanting to quit or take a long break, but the more faith you show in it, the more it will reward you in the long run. For me it was the climax of season 3 when I realised I was 100% into it, and that everything that had happened to that point was now starting to make sense in a larger context. Basically, what you think this is and what you assume it is about early doors, is not where it ends up. It goes somewhere way better!
Perhaps because it has the support of the book series as inspiration, the writing and story arc feels stronger and stronger in time. There are to date 9 books, so there is still scope to let this run for a good few years. And it does start to feel like there is a point where it will all completely tie together. Anyway, I am rambling as much as an average episode seems to do here. The point is, there is something right on the tightrope edge of classic or near miss going on with this. The cast have all really grown into their skins and personalities, and there are some moments in seasons 4 & 5 that left me jaw dropped at their dramatic weight!
Look, this isn’t going to be for everyone. It is very easy to say “I don’t get it” and move on with this show, but I am a sci-fi veteran , if not full geek, and I now absolutely love it. Cult status then is what we are talking about here. There will be a good wait for season six now, but the cliffhanger is mouth-watering, so I am in! It’s far from impossible they will ruin the vibe at some point and it will all fall flat… or, it could become the stuff of legend. I’ll be there to find out either way. No chance I am doing 5 seasons of something to drop out at that point.
Take away the space and the spaceships and this is a story about division and rights, and the hard work it takes to meet a diplomatic solution to the many differences and grievances that exist between different tribes and factions. What will some do to gain power? What will others do to ensure freedom and justice? How easy is it to waste life in the name of a cause? Oh, yeah and there’s also the little detail of an ancient alien civilisation that have been leaving tech and artifacts all over the solar system for us to fight over and try to control. As I say, the main story element of it all still feels like a partial mystery, and I love that!
Based on the novel series by James S. A. Corey (actually the assumed name of collaborators Ty Franck and Daniel Abraham), which began in 2011 and has produced one book a year since, the TV version has been on the go since 2015, first at SyFy and then at Amazon after being cancelled unfairly, and to mass uproar from the fans, after Season three. It isn’t something you watch casually – either you are into it and make a point of obsessing about it, or you watch a few, feel completely lost and admit it isn’t for you; although you suspect it is good and you just didn’t make the effort to engage enough. Sci-fi this earnest can be like that: a little unforgiving to tourists and passers-by.
Personally, I went through 2 phases with it. The first was watching it late at night with autoplay on, falling in and out of sleep depending on how exciting what was happening was, missing a lot of the detail and feeling largely lost in space. The second was coming back to Season 4 recently (about 3 weeks ago), after taking in a full recap of the story, and becoming a true fan that couldn’t get enough of the complex web of storylines, motives and personalities. Catching up enough to have to wait a week between episodes for the last 4 weeks, which has been tremendously rewarding.
Not that I had a major problem with it from the start. I thought it had a great look and a great mood about it, but lacked some star quality in the cast and was fairly opaque storywise. It always had potential. It was a question of whether you could be bothered to invest in that, knowing that it may go nowhere or even get cancelled very quickly – the TV universe is not known for being kind to sci-fi, as die-hard fans of Firefly still weep about regularly, and quite correctly.
In season one you watch it for the only person onboard that you have heard of, namely Thomas Jane (from The Mist and The Punisher) as det. Joe Miller, a cynical sleuth complete with a great anachronistic hat, who gets wrapped up in a mystery so mysterious it is often hard to work out what he is doing at all, and why… he literally comes and goes, for reasons that become apparent in later seasons. A frustrating and yet fascinating entity that must have been a real test to get right.
The show’s main cast also take a lot of time to warm up, to the point where you wonder who they are and whether they will be in it for long? Steven Strait, Dominique Tipper, Wes Chatham and Cas Anvar, as the ragtag collective of a small ship (they eventually name The Rocinante) that finds itself at the centre of a huge political shitstorm as the last bastion of impartial hope and moral reasoning, exude such little charisma at first it all seems doomed to fail. But, something magical begins to happen, by virtue of being in their presence a lot – you start to care. And the more you care the more the subsequent events have the power to stun you sideways!
More than anything else I can think of in recent years, this is a show that rewards patient investment. You will have definite moments of wanting to quit or take a long break, but the more faith you show in it, the more it will reward you in the long run. For me it was the climax of season 3 when I realised I was 100% into it, and that everything that had happened to that point was now starting to make sense in a larger context. Basically, what you think this is and what you assume it is about early doors, is not where it ends up. It goes somewhere way better!
Perhaps because it has the support of the book series as inspiration, the writing and story arc feels stronger and stronger in time. There are to date 9 books, so there is still scope to let this run for a good few years. And it does start to feel like there is a point where it will all completely tie together. Anyway, I am rambling as much as an average episode seems to do here. The point is, there is something right on the tightrope edge of classic or near miss going on with this. The cast have all really grown into their skins and personalities, and there are some moments in seasons 4 & 5 that left me jaw dropped at their dramatic weight!
Look, this isn’t going to be for everyone. It is very easy to say “I don’t get it” and move on with this show, but I am a sci-fi veteran , if not full geek, and I now absolutely love it. Cult status then is what we are talking about here. There will be a good wait for season six now, but the cliffhanger is mouth-watering, so I am in! It’s far from impossible they will ruin the vibe at some point and it will all fall flat… or, it could become the stuff of legend. I’ll be there to find out either way. No chance I am doing 5 seasons of something to drop out at that point.
Take away the space and the spaceships and this is a story about division and rights, and the hard work it takes to meet a diplomatic solution to the many differences and grievances that exist between different tribes and factions. What will some do to gain power? What will others do to ensure freedom and justice? How easy is it to waste life in the name of a cause? Oh, yeah and there’s also the little detail of an ancient alien civilisation that have been leaving tech and artifacts all over the solar system for us to fight over and try to control. As I say, the main story element of it all still feels like a partial mystery, and I love that!
The nerdy birdie (67 KP) rated Girls' Night Out in Books
Jul 2, 2018
First & foremost thank you very much to Netgalley & Lake Union Publishing for allowing me to read a free arc of this book in exchange for an honest review ❤️??.
I MUST start off by saying that when I browse through Netgalley and choose which books I'd like to review I always go by the synopsis of the book and don't really pay attention to the cover or the author(s). I absolutely love a good thriller, so when I read what this book was about I couldn't hit the "request" button fast enough. When asked what appealed to me...I indicated the subject matter. How could I not relate to going on a trip with two of my best girlfriends? Sign me up! Then, since I am very new to this process, only joining as of May 30th, I was approved for a large amount of novels all at once and this one got lost somewhere in amongst the crowd. I read 15 books BEFORE this one, which would not have been the case had I taken a brief moment to contemplate where I had heard the two authors names Lisa Steinke & Liz Fenton before.
To continue on with my story...I was ready to select my next book to read last night and came across
" Girls' Night Out" somewhere in the middle of my shelf and thought to myself, " Awesome...Download!" It wasn't until I was flipping through the beginning pages ( you know, the ones that are usually passed by and disregarded until you find page 1 or " prologue.") when I saw other books listed by these co-authors. There in plain sight was " The Status of All Things," one of my favorite books of all time! My review of this book clearly indicates " definitely in my top 20 books of all time" and it's categorized in my favorites folder on goodreads! Total fan-girl moment!!!!! Kate was one of my favorite characters, I saw so much of myself in her! So...before I review this new book I must also insist that if you're reading this to please also pick up their other book " The Status of All Things" which I have already recommended to every single one of my friends. It is about a girl in her thirties that is obsessed with social media ( who isn't?) who is able to keep changing her life & the lives of those around her based on her Facebook status updates! It reminds me of Lauren Oliver's "Before I Fall" meets "The Butterfly Effect" movie. End rant, sorry! But read it ?
Now onto my review of " A Girls' Night Out!" Whew! The suspense was almost too much to bear in this one! Just imagine...you go on a much needed vaca to a beautiful island with two of your best girl friends and one of them disappears!!! Yes, you wake up and she's gone..one friend can't remember because she was so intoxicated and the other basically left her to fend for herself and went home with some random bartender. Which one would you rather be? The missing? The drunk? The sexaholic? Not very good friends if you ask me.
I started reading around 9 pm and read for so long that I fell asleep with my kindle on my face, woke up at 4 am and read some more, and couldn't put it down all day today! I ate breakfast, lunch and dinner all the while flip, flip, flipping through the pages and devouring every word! It was like this book was my oxygen and I needed it to survive.
I had myself talked into various scenarios because I so desperately wanted to figure out what was going on! At one point I thought that Marco was a setup from the beginning, a plant to take Ashley away and cause problems for her marriage. Payback time? Then I thought that Lauren had drugged Natalie and done something to Ashley herself. I also thought that Ben, Jason & Natalie were in on something together against Ashley because they all wanted the money from the business. I also thought Marco wasn't even real and maybe someone that both girls made up to get away with murder! Man does my head hurt! This book gave me whiplash ?? I won't give away any spoilers or endings but what I will say is that when they showed up at the morgue to identify the body my heart was pounding like I was right there with them. Please don't let it be her.
How can these two best friends perfect two completely different genres? I don't know, but they did! A great team! Can't wait to read ALL of their other books! Another one to add to my favorites shelf.
I MUST start off by saying that when I browse through Netgalley and choose which books I'd like to review I always go by the synopsis of the book and don't really pay attention to the cover or the author(s). I absolutely love a good thriller, so when I read what this book was about I couldn't hit the "request" button fast enough. When asked what appealed to me...I indicated the subject matter. How could I not relate to going on a trip with two of my best girlfriends? Sign me up! Then, since I am very new to this process, only joining as of May 30th, I was approved for a large amount of novels all at once and this one got lost somewhere in amongst the crowd. I read 15 books BEFORE this one, which would not have been the case had I taken a brief moment to contemplate where I had heard the two authors names Lisa Steinke & Liz Fenton before.
To continue on with my story...I was ready to select my next book to read last night and came across
" Girls' Night Out" somewhere in the middle of my shelf and thought to myself, " Awesome...Download!" It wasn't until I was flipping through the beginning pages ( you know, the ones that are usually passed by and disregarded until you find page 1 or " prologue.") when I saw other books listed by these co-authors. There in plain sight was " The Status of All Things," one of my favorite books of all time! My review of this book clearly indicates " definitely in my top 20 books of all time" and it's categorized in my favorites folder on goodreads! Total fan-girl moment!!!!! Kate was one of my favorite characters, I saw so much of myself in her! So...before I review this new book I must also insist that if you're reading this to please also pick up their other book " The Status of All Things" which I have already recommended to every single one of my friends. It is about a girl in her thirties that is obsessed with social media ( who isn't?) who is able to keep changing her life & the lives of those around her based on her Facebook status updates! It reminds me of Lauren Oliver's "Before I Fall" meets "The Butterfly Effect" movie. End rant, sorry! But read it ?
Now onto my review of " A Girls' Night Out!" Whew! The suspense was almost too much to bear in this one! Just imagine...you go on a much needed vaca to a beautiful island with two of your best girl friends and one of them disappears!!! Yes, you wake up and she's gone..one friend can't remember because she was so intoxicated and the other basically left her to fend for herself and went home with some random bartender. Which one would you rather be? The missing? The drunk? The sexaholic? Not very good friends if you ask me.
I started reading around 9 pm and read for so long that I fell asleep with my kindle on my face, woke up at 4 am and read some more, and couldn't put it down all day today! I ate breakfast, lunch and dinner all the while flip, flip, flipping through the pages and devouring every word! It was like this book was my oxygen and I needed it to survive.
I had myself talked into various scenarios because I so desperately wanted to figure out what was going on! At one point I thought that Marco was a setup from the beginning, a plant to take Ashley away and cause problems for her marriage. Payback time? Then I thought that Lauren had drugged Natalie and done something to Ashley herself. I also thought that Ben, Jason & Natalie were in on something together against Ashley because they all wanted the money from the business. I also thought Marco wasn't even real and maybe someone that both girls made up to get away with murder! Man does my head hurt! This book gave me whiplash ?? I won't give away any spoilers or endings but what I will say is that when they showed up at the morgue to identify the body my heart was pounding like I was right there with them. Please don't let it be her.
How can these two best friends perfect two completely different genres? I don't know, but they did! A great team! Can't wait to read ALL of their other books! Another one to add to my favorites shelf.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated A Frozen Heart in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
It seems like adaptations of Frozen and Frozen 2 are everywhere right now: it must be so hard for an author to come up with a story that is different enough to draw readers in but still in-keeping with the story. Luckily, Elizabeth Rudnick’s skilled writing turns the typical Frozen tale on its head: telling it solely from the perspective of Anna and Hans.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
Mayhawke (97 KP) rated I am No One in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Intriguing but ultimately disappointing
Written in the first person I Am No One is the account of recent events in the life of the fictional NY academic, Jeremy O'Keefe. O'Keefe, ironically an expert in surveillance, finds himself the subject of apparent scrutiny by unknown observers, a discovery that propels him into paranoia and pushes him to the boundaries of sanity. As the story is unpacked, page by page, it becomes clear that O'Keefe's paranoia is not unfounded, and that his initial confusion as to why anyone would want to bother observing the behaviour of a mundane and only moderately successful Professor actually belies a deeper understanding of the cause and his actions that precipitated it.
O'Keefe is a difficult character to really sympathise with. Whilst his ideology is admirably egalitarian he falls into that bracket of slightly stuffy, middle-class liberals who take themselves too seriously and fail to practise what they preach. In fairness to O'Keefe he largely has the grace and self-awareness to question the rationality of his fears and accidental moments of prejudice (though he is of the very typical male Liberal variety that doesn't seem to recognise the contradiction of professing himself feminist whilst watching porn): slightly pompous, slightly too much self-regard slightly too much sense of victimhood, he is not unlikeable just a bit of a non-entity. Whilst this is clearly intentional it makes his narrative stodgy. Not unreadable, but at the same time easy to put down for a week whilst a more engaging book is read. This is either a spectacularly adept piece of characterisation or an unfortunate reflection of the author, Patrick Flanery. I do hope it is the writing because if not then all the peculiar, inaccurate and unlikely observations made by O'Keefe onbehalf of his character regarding differences between the British and Americans are likely also Flanery's:. For example the breath-taking assertion that socio-economic failure is treated more harshly in the UK than in the US, when any basic knowledge of sociology in the two countries shows that the criteria for failure is a) much broader in the US and b) responded to far more harshly, e.g.: "if you don't earn enough from your three jobs to afford medical insurance to pay for your cancer treatment, you clearly haven't worked hard enough. The fault is yours , you are a failure and the punishment is premature death.". It is also difficult to accept that Flanery is regularly treated with distrust and dislike by bank cashiers for his Irish name. Quite aside from anything else most bank cashiers in this country now aren't old enough to remember the Irish troubles, and the bigots-for-bigotry's-sake have long since transferred their angst from the Irish to the Poles and the Muslims.
Flanery is also an academic, something that is abundantly obvious from the highly structured writing method he employs in this book. The reader is left with the impression that where other novelists write books to be read as stories Flanery has written a text with an eye to future deconstruction by English Lit students. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but occasionally one wishes he could have been a little less concerned with construction in the minutiae and more concerned with crafting a story with a complete beginning, middle and end. And therein lies one of the greatest failings of this book: it has no real conclusion. Questions are raised that go unanswered. In particular, there are issues with characters, whose true identity may never be elaborated upon or, in the case of his girlfriend who makes a sudden, poorly explained behavioural volte-face that is entirely out of character but provides Flanery with a device to enable his protagonist take the critical closing step to the tale.
It seems that Flanery has written this book as a parable on the dangers of unfettered digital surveillance: how easy it is for those who wish to to access all our personal data and how very quickly and efficiently lives can be subverted. Whilst this may be a revelation to a few it has to be said that there is nothing revealed in this book about the scope and methods of data collection that anyone who has even a small amount of technical savvy won't already know, which rather undermines it as an expose. The book also attempts to portray how easy it is to suddenly and unintentionally find oneself on the wrong side of the law. Unfortunately in this story the actions which purport to have landed O'Keefe in possible criminality are so ridiculous and far-fetched that only the most paranoid would ever see an offence in them. Contrary to highlighting the ease with which the well intentioned can unwittingly find themselves in need of lawyers it suggests that all the peripheral characters are actually far more paranoid and delusional than O'Keefe will ever be.
All that aside this was an intriguing and mildly engaging story. Largely well-written but let down by a an unsatisfactory conclusion and a failure to induce the kind of fear that was intended.
O'Keefe is a difficult character to really sympathise with. Whilst his ideology is admirably egalitarian he falls into that bracket of slightly stuffy, middle-class liberals who take themselves too seriously and fail to practise what they preach. In fairness to O'Keefe he largely has the grace and self-awareness to question the rationality of his fears and accidental moments of prejudice (though he is of the very typical male Liberal variety that doesn't seem to recognise the contradiction of professing himself feminist whilst watching porn): slightly pompous, slightly too much self-regard slightly too much sense of victimhood, he is not unlikeable just a bit of a non-entity. Whilst this is clearly intentional it makes his narrative stodgy. Not unreadable, but at the same time easy to put down for a week whilst a more engaging book is read. This is either a spectacularly adept piece of characterisation or an unfortunate reflection of the author, Patrick Flanery. I do hope it is the writing because if not then all the peculiar, inaccurate and unlikely observations made by O'Keefe onbehalf of his character regarding differences between the British and Americans are likely also Flanery's:. For example the breath-taking assertion that socio-economic failure is treated more harshly in the UK than in the US, when any basic knowledge of sociology in the two countries shows that the criteria for failure is a) much broader in the US and b) responded to far more harshly, e.g.: "if you don't earn enough from your three jobs to afford medical insurance to pay for your cancer treatment, you clearly haven't worked hard enough. The fault is yours , you are a failure and the punishment is premature death.". It is also difficult to accept that Flanery is regularly treated with distrust and dislike by bank cashiers for his Irish name. Quite aside from anything else most bank cashiers in this country now aren't old enough to remember the Irish troubles, and the bigots-for-bigotry's-sake have long since transferred their angst from the Irish to the Poles and the Muslims.
Flanery is also an academic, something that is abundantly obvious from the highly structured writing method he employs in this book. The reader is left with the impression that where other novelists write books to be read as stories Flanery has written a text with an eye to future deconstruction by English Lit students. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but occasionally one wishes he could have been a little less concerned with construction in the minutiae and more concerned with crafting a story with a complete beginning, middle and end. And therein lies one of the greatest failings of this book: it has no real conclusion. Questions are raised that go unanswered. In particular, there are issues with characters, whose true identity may never be elaborated upon or, in the case of his girlfriend who makes a sudden, poorly explained behavioural volte-face that is entirely out of character but provides Flanery with a device to enable his protagonist take the critical closing step to the tale.
It seems that Flanery has written this book as a parable on the dangers of unfettered digital surveillance: how easy it is for those who wish to to access all our personal data and how very quickly and efficiently lives can be subverted. Whilst this may be a revelation to a few it has to be said that there is nothing revealed in this book about the scope and methods of data collection that anyone who has even a small amount of technical savvy won't already know, which rather undermines it as an expose. The book also attempts to portray how easy it is to suddenly and unintentionally find oneself on the wrong side of the law. Unfortunately in this story the actions which purport to have landed O'Keefe in possible criminality are so ridiculous and far-fetched that only the most paranoid would ever see an offence in them. Contrary to highlighting the ease with which the well intentioned can unwittingly find themselves in need of lawyers it suggests that all the peripheral characters are actually far more paranoid and delusional than O'Keefe will ever be.
All that aside this was an intriguing and mildly engaging story. Largely well-written but let down by a an unsatisfactory conclusion and a failure to induce the kind of fear that was intended.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Tether (The ELI Chronicles, #2) in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<b>The ELI Chronicles Series</b>
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2387441859">The One and Only</a> - ★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2803361466">The Tether</a> - ★★★★
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Book-Review-Banner-19.png?resize=1024%2C576&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>As soon as I read <a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/2018/05/29/the-one-and-only-julia-ash-book-review/">The One and Only, the first book of the ELI Chronicles,</a> I knew I had to finish the series. When Julia Ash reached out to me, letting me know the second book, The Tether, is available for review – I obviously jumped at the opportunity!M/i></b>
It took me a bit to get to it due to my busy schedule, but once I finally got my hands on The Tether and started reading it, I couldn’t put it down.
The Tether continues where the first book finished – Ruby managed to save the Earth from the ZOM-B disease and a possible zombie apocalypse, being the only person with a unique blood type that can provide a cure. And then she got turned to a vampire.
And when everything seems quiet, things are starting to escalate again. Ruby’s blood donors are from another planet, and one of the donors is the King of Darkness, an ancient vampire who is in search for food – animals and humans on Earth. And once again, it is up to Ruby to save the planet and her family. Only this time, she discovers she has way more power than she thought.
If you read my review on Book One, you will know I was confused and angry with how the first book ended. Right after a Zombie Apocalypse, we had a vampire ending. For a moment, I thought that once you start mixing too many things up, it can get confusing. But this series somehow manages to keep it all together, and it all logically makes sense. I just fear that perhaps people might not agree with me and find it confusing. I didn’t though.
Ruby, again, was my favourite character. She had to go through so much, and then learn to finally embrace it. She kept herself down on Earth, despite her power, and that made me like her even more. I also respect her so much for sacrificing herself for a greater cause, and always putting her family first!
<i><b>Clay, oh, Clay…</b></i>
We never got along buddy. But I couldn’t help but feel for Clay in this book, and he is slowly growing on me. He has to slowly age and then die, while his wife is immortal. Secretly, I hope he becomes a vampire too, so they can spend their eternity together, even though, let’s be honest, he won’t really bring anything much to the table. But I loved, how he sacrificed himself for his family, and stood up against bullies, even if they were immortal vampires.
I loved our main villain in this book – Zagan. For he had reasoning for everything he did, even though it was wrong. He had a purpose and a goal, and he did have a pinch of good inside him. But he also had evil, and that was never gonna change.
Interestingly enough, and a big no-surprise for me was the government. Their corruption and the depths that they were willing to go to reach their goal was scary – and very accurate to what actually is currently happening in the world. The fear is also represented, and how differently they react as soon as they see someone who has more power than them. Their thinking of making new people similar to this one case, that they could use for greater goals. This moment was captured in the book in a great way, as it is a great discussion point and a very painful subject at the same time for some people.
The new planet, new characters, new powers was an interesting switch within the book. I didn’t expect that at all, but I was pleasantly surprised with how it all fitted in. It was all well thought of, The Tether story, the tree, the blood connection with Ruby, the link between the planet and Earth, the concept of how people lived their belief of healing what they were hurting and keeping the balance. The one thing that confused me was the mentions of their heartbeats, as I thought vampire’s hearts don’t beat.
<b><i>I really enjoyed The Tether and it ended perfectly, getting us ready for the third book and Ruby’s next challenge. I highly recommend it – it is a real page-turner with incredible plot twists!
Thank you to the author, Julia Ash, for sending me a copy of The Tether, in exchange for an honest review!</i></b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<b>The ELI Chronicles Series</b>
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2387441859">The One and Only</a> - ★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2803361466">The Tether</a> - ★★★★
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Book-Review-Banner-19.png?resize=1024%2C576&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>As soon as I read <a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/2018/05/29/the-one-and-only-julia-ash-book-review/">The One and Only, the first book of the ELI Chronicles,</a> I knew I had to finish the series. When Julia Ash reached out to me, letting me know the second book, The Tether, is available for review – I obviously jumped at the opportunity!M/i></b>
It took me a bit to get to it due to my busy schedule, but once I finally got my hands on The Tether and started reading it, I couldn’t put it down.
The Tether continues where the first book finished – Ruby managed to save the Earth from the ZOM-B disease and a possible zombie apocalypse, being the only person with a unique blood type that can provide a cure. And then she got turned to a vampire.
And when everything seems quiet, things are starting to escalate again. Ruby’s blood donors are from another planet, and one of the donors is the King of Darkness, an ancient vampire who is in search for food – animals and humans on Earth. And once again, it is up to Ruby to save the planet and her family. Only this time, she discovers she has way more power than she thought.
If you read my review on Book One, you will know I was confused and angry with how the first book ended. Right after a Zombie Apocalypse, we had a vampire ending. For a moment, I thought that once you start mixing too many things up, it can get confusing. But this series somehow manages to keep it all together, and it all logically makes sense. I just fear that perhaps people might not agree with me and find it confusing. I didn’t though.
Ruby, again, was my favourite character. She had to go through so much, and then learn to finally embrace it. She kept herself down on Earth, despite her power, and that made me like her even more. I also respect her so much for sacrificing herself for a greater cause, and always putting her family first!
<i><b>Clay, oh, Clay…</b></i>
We never got along buddy. But I couldn’t help but feel for Clay in this book, and he is slowly growing on me. He has to slowly age and then die, while his wife is immortal. Secretly, I hope he becomes a vampire too, so they can spend their eternity together, even though, let’s be honest, he won’t really bring anything much to the table. But I loved, how he sacrificed himself for his family, and stood up against bullies, even if they were immortal vampires.
I loved our main villain in this book – Zagan. For he had reasoning for everything he did, even though it was wrong. He had a purpose and a goal, and he did have a pinch of good inside him. But he also had evil, and that was never gonna change.
Interestingly enough, and a big no-surprise for me was the government. Their corruption and the depths that they were willing to go to reach their goal was scary – and very accurate to what actually is currently happening in the world. The fear is also represented, and how differently they react as soon as they see someone who has more power than them. Their thinking of making new people similar to this one case, that they could use for greater goals. This moment was captured in the book in a great way, as it is a great discussion point and a very painful subject at the same time for some people.
The new planet, new characters, new powers was an interesting switch within the book. I didn’t expect that at all, but I was pleasantly surprised with how it all fitted in. It was all well thought of, The Tether story, the tree, the blood connection with Ruby, the link between the planet and Earth, the concept of how people lived their belief of healing what they were hurting and keeping the balance. The one thing that confused me was the mentions of their heartbeats, as I thought vampire’s hearts don’t beat.
<b><i>I really enjoyed The Tether and it ended perfectly, getting us ready for the third book and Ruby’s next challenge. I highly recommend it – it is a real page-turner with incredible plot twists!
Thank you to the author, Julia Ash, for sending me a copy of The Tether, in exchange for an honest review!</i></b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Hunt (2020) in Movies
Mar 25, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
I've been looking forward to this since before it was cool.
A group of strangers wake up in the middle of nowhere, gagged and confused. The last thing they remember is being home in their respective states and then waking up in a clearing with each other.
It's no mystery to some why they're there, it's the Hunt. The bored elite pick up 12 strangers to hunt for sport and now it's their turn. A box full of weapons an open field and danger in every direction. Will the prey survive?
Mindless violence like this is right up my street, usually because it's so ridiculous it's funny and shocking in the most unexpected ways. It reminds me a lot of The Condemned, although there's no amazing role for Vinnie in this.
The trailers... ugh. One gives away a lot of key points and the other misleadingly splices together a lot of footage, the latter doesn't bother me nearly as much as the first. Had they only used the international trailer it would have avoided a lot of those problems and I think it would have left a bit more surprise.
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have noticed how many reveals there were if I hadn't gone back to find something out after seeing the film. I could not for the life of me understand why they insisted on only showing the back of Hilary Swank's head in the opening, in the plane, partially during her meeting... why? If they had kept the role a secret until a reveal at the very end of the film (I still wouldn't have understood it but) I would have kind of been okay with it... but they show her face in the trailer... so why the hidden face all the time?
We get quite a big cast here with a lot of faces to recognise, all be it very briefly at times. I'm a little impressed that they decided to knock out as many as they did so early on, and especially their choices.
We have Betty Gilpin in the lead as Crystal fighting back against her would be murderers. I've only come across Gilpin (knowingly) in Elementary where she also played a character with many quirks. There's a certain kick-assery quality to Crystal, and those bits are great, but when she gets intense and mentions she might have issues it seems odd and at times not at all clear what she might be alluding to. She seemed to handle the role well but the occasional loopy moment didn't really fit.
Hilary Swank's performance as Athena was okay but the character had a lot of different issues throughout that I personally think would have made any attempt at this role mediocre.
I'll cover some of the flaws in the movie briefly, very briefly because there are a lot of things that just don't make sense. The text message that starts the whole thing... horrendously specific and doesn't seem like a likely response in that conversation. To then cause her to rage out in her meeting and decide to have the invented rampage seems even more ridiculous. When the prey can roam anywhere, why are a big chunk of them staying in the bunker on the original drop point, and how would they have known in advance that having someone with refugees would pan out in the end? And why after being so furious about the whole thing does Athena stay in her manor? Those are some of the things to quibble about, but I'll move on.
The film appears to say a lot but honestly doesn't really say anything at all. No point is ever really followed through with and explained, so the fact I wasn't "in tune" with it I didn't take anything away from those scenes anyway. At one point they throw so many topics into a conversation that it became quite annoying. I found it interesting to read up about why the film was pulled in the first place, under the veils of some terrible incidents in America at the time when it seems that the media influence was trying to crush it even before that because of all these hot topics. I don't know why anyone would be in their case if they'd actually seen the film, but as I said, this isn't my area of expertise so I don't intend to debate on the point.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ending, all I can say is that that sandwich would definitely have been burnt.
There are a lot of threads to pick at in The Hunt but none of them actually made the film fall apart, it has some humour, including some of those moments that aren't really funny but they're shocking and you laugh as a defense mechanism. It has one moment in particular that is so far off course that I wondered if it would go all out spoof. Even with the issue I still enjoyed it, there's something in these films (like Bloodshot had been) that relieves the stress of having to think.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-hunt-movie-review-spoilers.html
A group of strangers wake up in the middle of nowhere, gagged and confused. The last thing they remember is being home in their respective states and then waking up in a clearing with each other.
It's no mystery to some why they're there, it's the Hunt. The bored elite pick up 12 strangers to hunt for sport and now it's their turn. A box full of weapons an open field and danger in every direction. Will the prey survive?
Mindless violence like this is right up my street, usually because it's so ridiculous it's funny and shocking in the most unexpected ways. It reminds me a lot of The Condemned, although there's no amazing role for Vinnie in this.
The trailers... ugh. One gives away a lot of key points and the other misleadingly splices together a lot of footage, the latter doesn't bother me nearly as much as the first. Had they only used the international trailer it would have avoided a lot of those problems and I think it would have left a bit more surprise.
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have noticed how many reveals there were if I hadn't gone back to find something out after seeing the film. I could not for the life of me understand why they insisted on only showing the back of Hilary Swank's head in the opening, in the plane, partially during her meeting... why? If they had kept the role a secret until a reveal at the very end of the film (I still wouldn't have understood it but) I would have kind of been okay with it... but they show her face in the trailer... so why the hidden face all the time?
We get quite a big cast here with a lot of faces to recognise, all be it very briefly at times. I'm a little impressed that they decided to knock out as many as they did so early on, and especially their choices.
We have Betty Gilpin in the lead as Crystal fighting back against her would be murderers. I've only come across Gilpin (knowingly) in Elementary where she also played a character with many quirks. There's a certain kick-assery quality to Crystal, and those bits are great, but when she gets intense and mentions she might have issues it seems odd and at times not at all clear what she might be alluding to. She seemed to handle the role well but the occasional loopy moment didn't really fit.
Hilary Swank's performance as Athena was okay but the character had a lot of different issues throughout that I personally think would have made any attempt at this role mediocre.
I'll cover some of the flaws in the movie briefly, very briefly because there are a lot of things that just don't make sense. The text message that starts the whole thing... horrendously specific and doesn't seem like a likely response in that conversation. To then cause her to rage out in her meeting and decide to have the invented rampage seems even more ridiculous. When the prey can roam anywhere, why are a big chunk of them staying in the bunker on the original drop point, and how would they have known in advance that having someone with refugees would pan out in the end? And why after being so furious about the whole thing does Athena stay in her manor? Those are some of the things to quibble about, but I'll move on.
The film appears to say a lot but honestly doesn't really say anything at all. No point is ever really followed through with and explained, so the fact I wasn't "in tune" with it I didn't take anything away from those scenes anyway. At one point they throw so many topics into a conversation that it became quite annoying. I found it interesting to read up about why the film was pulled in the first place, under the veils of some terrible incidents in America at the time when it seems that the media influence was trying to crush it even before that because of all these hot topics. I don't know why anyone would be in their case if they'd actually seen the film, but as I said, this isn't my area of expertise so I don't intend to debate on the point.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ending, all I can say is that that sandwich would definitely have been burnt.
There are a lot of threads to pick at in The Hunt but none of them actually made the film fall apart, it has some humour, including some of those moments that aren't really funny but they're shocking and you laugh as a defense mechanism. It has one moment in particular that is so far off course that I wondered if it would go all out spoof. Even with the issue I still enjoyed it, there's something in these films (like Bloodshot had been) that relieves the stress of having to think.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-hunt-movie-review-spoilers.html