Search
Search results
This book held me in its spell from start to finish. Is that a bit too corny, considering it’s about witches? Actually, I don’t care, because it’s true!
It’s spellbinding, in fact.
Three generations of witches tell the stories of how they came into their power despite the interference of society and men (mainly men though 🤷🏼♀️).
In 1619, Altha Weyward is on trial for witchcraft, and whilst she’s in the towns prison she reminisces over her mother, her life before, everything she has learnt and the circumstances that led up to her incarceration. Altha had the knowledge needed to help people, but that same knowledge put her in danger from the church and general ignorance (and we can’t have women knowing more than men, can we!)
In 1942, Violet Ayres lives a very restricted life, tucked away from the rest of the world in her family home. She has only two clues about her heritage: her dead mothers locket with a “W” inscribed and the word “Weyward” scratched into the skirting board under her bed.
2019, Kate Ayres escapes a violent relationship in London and flees to Weyward cottage - the house her Aunt Violet had left her in her will. It’s a wild, unkempt, rundown house and garden, but it’s what Kate needs. She finds Altha’s diaries, some writings from Violet, and begins to learn about her true inheritance.
I just loved this book so much. Women taking control of their lives away from the men who would control them. Nature and magic is woven throughout, and nothing feels far-fetched or unbelievable.
I loved the alternating chapters between the three women, and this was probably the main reason why I couldn’t put it down. I needed to know what was going to happen to each of them next.
What more can I say? This WILL be high up in my favourite books this year. And to have read it in February!! How lucky am I!
I can’t wait to see what Emilia Hart writes next.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Harper Collins UK for my ebook copy of this book to read and review. Of course these are my own opinions!
It’s spellbinding, in fact.
Three generations of witches tell the stories of how they came into their power despite the interference of society and men (mainly men though 🤷🏼♀️).
In 1619, Altha Weyward is on trial for witchcraft, and whilst she’s in the towns prison she reminisces over her mother, her life before, everything she has learnt and the circumstances that led up to her incarceration. Altha had the knowledge needed to help people, but that same knowledge put her in danger from the church and general ignorance (and we can’t have women knowing more than men, can we!)
In 1942, Violet Ayres lives a very restricted life, tucked away from the rest of the world in her family home. She has only two clues about her heritage: her dead mothers locket with a “W” inscribed and the word “Weyward” scratched into the skirting board under her bed.
2019, Kate Ayres escapes a violent relationship in London and flees to Weyward cottage - the house her Aunt Violet had left her in her will. It’s a wild, unkempt, rundown house and garden, but it’s what Kate needs. She finds Altha’s diaries, some writings from Violet, and begins to learn about her true inheritance.
I just loved this book so much. Women taking control of their lives away from the men who would control them. Nature and magic is woven throughout, and nothing feels far-fetched or unbelievable.
I loved the alternating chapters between the three women, and this was probably the main reason why I couldn’t put it down. I needed to know what was going to happen to each of them next.
What more can I say? This WILL be high up in my favourite books this year. And to have read it in February!! How lucky am I!
I can’t wait to see what Emilia Hart writes next.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Harper Collins UK for my ebook copy of this book to read and review. Of course these are my own opinions!
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Gallowstree Lane (Collins and Griffiths #3) in Books
Sep 24, 2020
This novel is told from multiple perspectives, and it is very hard to identify the main lead in this book. It is a Sarah Collins and Lizzie Griffiths detective novel, both of them are very strong female detectives, but they don’t have much communication between each other throughout the book, so I don’t really see them as a duo. It is a third book in the Metropolitan series, and I haven’t read the previous books. I found It perfectly understandable as a stand-alone, and the author explains a lot of things from previous books, but I think, to understand Sarah and Lizzie properly, it is better to read the previous books before starting this one.
So, a little about the characters, Lizzie is a single mother, who got pregnant after the affair with a fellow detective, who was married. Lizzie is trying her best to do her job like everybody else, but she is struggling. I really liked that the author analyzed childcare issues in this book, and how difficult is to be a mother, who wants to work and take care of her baby by her self. On the other hand, I have very strong negative emotions about her involvement with a married man in the first place, and that is what made her and Kieran (the married detective) my least favourite characters in this book.
Sarah Collins is a very determined detective, who knows how to get the stuff done. I really liked her as a character, it is visible that she loves the job and is very good at it. Kate London chose the characters very well for this novel. They are diverse, believable and very intriguing. I was very curious to read Ryan’s thoughts, he is a fifteen-year-old drug dealer, who’s friend gets stabbed. I am curious, how much actual truth was in Ryan’s thoughts compared to real life youth who act like “wannabe gangsters”. I can see that the author used her experience at the police very well, the procedures, places, the criminal mind looks very realistically portrayed in this book.
I think this book is more character orientated, the plot is intriguing, but the character’s thoughts and their lives are more absorbing than the plot itself. The plot is quite fast-paced and filled with a lot of findings, and I really enjoyed the whole investigation experience. The author analyses very important topics in this book, such as teenage criminals, knife crime, gangs and their war for territory, prostitution, drug addictions, childcare issues for working single mothers etc.
I really liked the writing style of this book, the whole book feels gloomy and intense, but at the same time, it is a very pleasant read. The setting continuously changes, depending on the character. The chapters have a very decent length and didn’t leave me bored. The ending was quite unexpected but rounded up this book quite well. So, to conclude, this is a very realistic and believable novel about teenage criminals and police work, filled with very amusing characters, and twisty plot. I learned a lot of interesting information and thoroughly enjoyed it. Especially the topics discussed in this novel. I strongly recommend this book to all, but especially to anyone living in London, I hope you will like it as much as I did.
So, a little about the characters, Lizzie is a single mother, who got pregnant after the affair with a fellow detective, who was married. Lizzie is trying her best to do her job like everybody else, but she is struggling. I really liked that the author analyzed childcare issues in this book, and how difficult is to be a mother, who wants to work and take care of her baby by her self. On the other hand, I have very strong negative emotions about her involvement with a married man in the first place, and that is what made her and Kieran (the married detective) my least favourite characters in this book.
Sarah Collins is a very determined detective, who knows how to get the stuff done. I really liked her as a character, it is visible that she loves the job and is very good at it. Kate London chose the characters very well for this novel. They are diverse, believable and very intriguing. I was very curious to read Ryan’s thoughts, he is a fifteen-year-old drug dealer, who’s friend gets stabbed. I am curious, how much actual truth was in Ryan’s thoughts compared to real life youth who act like “wannabe gangsters”. I can see that the author used her experience at the police very well, the procedures, places, the criminal mind looks very realistically portrayed in this book.
I think this book is more character orientated, the plot is intriguing, but the character’s thoughts and their lives are more absorbing than the plot itself. The plot is quite fast-paced and filled with a lot of findings, and I really enjoyed the whole investigation experience. The author analyses very important topics in this book, such as teenage criminals, knife crime, gangs and their war for territory, prostitution, drug addictions, childcare issues for working single mothers etc.
I really liked the writing style of this book, the whole book feels gloomy and intense, but at the same time, it is a very pleasant read. The setting continuously changes, depending on the character. The chapters have a very decent length and didn’t leave me bored. The ending was quite unexpected but rounded up this book quite well. So, to conclude, this is a very realistic and believable novel about teenage criminals and police work, filled with very amusing characters, and twisty plot. I learned a lot of interesting information and thoroughly enjoyed it. Especially the topics discussed in this novel. I strongly recommend this book to all, but especially to anyone living in London, I hope you will like it as much as I did.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Triple 9 (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
A crew of bank robbers is strong-armed by the Russian mob to pull off a near impossible heist due the response time of the police. In order to create a larger window, the dirty cops of this crew suggest creating a 999 (police code for “officer down.”) on the other side of town. That is the basic plot of Triple 9. Yet, the tagline for this film is, “The Code on the street is never black and white.” Seems like a different movie which is part of the letdown of Triple 9. It doesn’t know what it wants to be. Is it a heist movie like Heat or The Town? Or is it trying to be a movie about the cops and the rules of the streets like Training Day?
In the beginning, the film sets its self-up to be a smart and stylistic heist film. However shortly after it begins to feel disjointed as it attempts to develop everyone in its ensemble cast to the point where it hurts the story and some excellent performances become forgettable. It’s a shame because somewhere in this film is potentially two excellent separate films. One film about a crew having to complete a heist for the mob to save their lives and loved ones, and another about dirty cops, their partners and the moral ambiguity of the code on the streets. In Triple 9, these two premises never really get developed on one side or the other and thus everything is just left there.
On the heist side, Chiwetel Ejiofor plays ex-mercenary Michael Atwood. Michael is the careful and calculating leader of the crew, but is tied to the Russian mafia through the mother of his son. Michael is constantly being coerced by the Russian Mob Boss, played by Kate Winslet. The two give stellar performances, most notably Winslet who is cold and ruthless in wielding her power, speaking her mind and not caring how the job gets done as long as it gets done.
On the cop side, Anthony Mackie plays dirty police detective Marcus Belmont who becomes partnered with the ex-marine turned rookie detective Chris Allen (Casey Affleck). Belmont feels that the rookie doesn’t respect the streets and his “Do-gooder” “make a difference” attitude is going to get him killed. When Belmont’s heist crewmate Jorge Rodriguez (Clifton Collins Jr.) learns Chris is also the nephew of the Sergeant Detective (Woody Harrelson) investigating the heist crew, Chris becomes the clear candidate to be set up for the Triple 9. (Convenient huh)
Ultimately, as the story plays out it feels we are always arriving at the end of the meeting to plan the coming events. From the planning of the heist, to the set up murder, and to the exit plan, we are just carried through the motions without much motivation of how or why things have to play out the way they do. As a result, I didn’t really care for any of the characters good or bad, unlike other films of this nature. Even Ejiofor’s character Michael, who has his child involved, doesn’t get the opportunity to really show why the rest of the crew respects him and follows him, or why he needs to stay alive for his son, who basically seems better off being taken care of by the Russian mob.
In the end Triple 9 is not a bad movie, it just isn’t really a great one either. It has strong performances by the entire cast and has the makings of something great, but fails to deliver on that opportunity with a disjointed story trying to focus on too many characters. This makes it ultimately forgettable compared to other heist films of similar nature.
In the beginning, the film sets its self-up to be a smart and stylistic heist film. However shortly after it begins to feel disjointed as it attempts to develop everyone in its ensemble cast to the point where it hurts the story and some excellent performances become forgettable. It’s a shame because somewhere in this film is potentially two excellent separate films. One film about a crew having to complete a heist for the mob to save their lives and loved ones, and another about dirty cops, their partners and the moral ambiguity of the code on the streets. In Triple 9, these two premises never really get developed on one side or the other and thus everything is just left there.
On the heist side, Chiwetel Ejiofor plays ex-mercenary Michael Atwood. Michael is the careful and calculating leader of the crew, but is tied to the Russian mafia through the mother of his son. Michael is constantly being coerced by the Russian Mob Boss, played by Kate Winslet. The two give stellar performances, most notably Winslet who is cold and ruthless in wielding her power, speaking her mind and not caring how the job gets done as long as it gets done.
On the cop side, Anthony Mackie plays dirty police detective Marcus Belmont who becomes partnered with the ex-marine turned rookie detective Chris Allen (Casey Affleck). Belmont feels that the rookie doesn’t respect the streets and his “Do-gooder” “make a difference” attitude is going to get him killed. When Belmont’s heist crewmate Jorge Rodriguez (Clifton Collins Jr.) learns Chris is also the nephew of the Sergeant Detective (Woody Harrelson) investigating the heist crew, Chris becomes the clear candidate to be set up for the Triple 9. (Convenient huh)
Ultimately, as the story plays out it feels we are always arriving at the end of the meeting to plan the coming events. From the planning of the heist, to the set up murder, and to the exit plan, we are just carried through the motions without much motivation of how or why things have to play out the way they do. As a result, I didn’t really care for any of the characters good or bad, unlike other films of this nature. Even Ejiofor’s character Michael, who has his child involved, doesn’t get the opportunity to really show why the rest of the crew respects him and follows him, or why he needs to stay alive for his son, who basically seems better off being taken care of by the Russian mob.
In the end Triple 9 is not a bad movie, it just isn’t really a great one either. It has strong performances by the entire cast and has the makings of something great, but fails to deliver on that opportunity with a disjointed story trying to focus on too many characters. This makes it ultimately forgettable compared to other heist films of similar nature.