Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Great but disappointing
Frank Sheeran starts in humble beginnings driving a meat truck while trying to make a living to support his family. He takes the favor of the right connect mobsters and quickly rises through the ranks to become one of its elite. He perpetrates countless villainous activities including murder, bribery, extortion and general unpleasantness toward his fellow man to the point where it almost becomes routine.
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Debbiereadsbook (1202 KP) rated Immersion Play (Leather and Lattes #1) in Books
May 10, 2024
Stunning intro into this new world!
I was gifted my copy of this book, that I write a review was not required.
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT if you follow my reviews, you'll know I have a particular fondness for this author, having followed her for some time and I NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED to write a review to tell you about this book.
Because it's a cracker of a book! Full of love and smex and found families and disfunctional real families and all the geeky references that are McIntyre's trademark!
Micah runs from his home, literally in the middle of the night, back to San Fran and his previous college room-mate, Pixie. He lands the job at Whipped as barista, and is introduced to a world of kink. Parker is a Dom, a Daddy as well. But he refuses to let anyone into his heart after seeing what losing the love of his life did to his dad. Micah, though, gets under his skin and sneaks in. Knowing it can only end in heartbreak, they still embark on a rollercoaster of a relationship, til Micah pushes Parker away, and Parker has to make some difficult decisions.
What I loved about this was that it really did creep up on me! I was enjoying it, yes, but couldn't say I loved it. Then I have no idea what happened, who said what or anything, but I started to LOVE this book, I really did!
Whipped is a kink cafe, and the staff are extremely free with their affections and bodies. I liked that Micah knew this, and still went to that first play night with them all. He did some research too, and knew once he found out that Parker liked to spank, he wanted that, wanted Parker. I loved that parker was well aware that Micah was new to the screen, and led him accordingly, even if Micah was the brattiest brat he ever came across, and Micah really didn't know that about himself.
Scorching smexy scenes between Micah and Parker, with a connection rarely seen. Even for McIntyre, the connection runs deep and hot and I loved it!
As it is a kink cafe, there is lots of smexy scenes, and I loved the introduction to the staff and owners and their particular flavour of kink. I feel that all these people will have amazing tales to tell and I really look forward to them!
Micah and Parker's story has some difficult themes: death of a parent, withdrawl from life of another, obnoxious families, and all that entails. I loved how each topic was dealt with. Parker tries with his dad, he really does, but it's not until Parker lays it all out with his dad, that dad then tries too. Micah's family caused all his problems, caused him to run, but he always thought they would come round. It's not until his sister Eva, comes out to them, that they show their true colours and Micah decides enough is enough.
It's Eva who gets the next story, her and Pixie hit it right off when she visits Micah. I look forward to reading that book!!
I can't give it anything other than . . . .
5 full and shiny, and super smexy stars!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT if you follow my reviews, you'll know I have a particular fondness for this author, having followed her for some time and I NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED to write a review to tell you about this book.
Because it's a cracker of a book! Full of love and smex and found families and disfunctional real families and all the geeky references that are McIntyre's trademark!
Micah runs from his home, literally in the middle of the night, back to San Fran and his previous college room-mate, Pixie. He lands the job at Whipped as barista, and is introduced to a world of kink. Parker is a Dom, a Daddy as well. But he refuses to let anyone into his heart after seeing what losing the love of his life did to his dad. Micah, though, gets under his skin and sneaks in. Knowing it can only end in heartbreak, they still embark on a rollercoaster of a relationship, til Micah pushes Parker away, and Parker has to make some difficult decisions.
What I loved about this was that it really did creep up on me! I was enjoying it, yes, but couldn't say I loved it. Then I have no idea what happened, who said what or anything, but I started to LOVE this book, I really did!
Whipped is a kink cafe, and the staff are extremely free with their affections and bodies. I liked that Micah knew this, and still went to that first play night with them all. He did some research too, and knew once he found out that Parker liked to spank, he wanted that, wanted Parker. I loved that parker was well aware that Micah was new to the screen, and led him accordingly, even if Micah was the brattiest brat he ever came across, and Micah really didn't know that about himself.
Scorching smexy scenes between Micah and Parker, with a connection rarely seen. Even for McIntyre, the connection runs deep and hot and I loved it!
As it is a kink cafe, there is lots of smexy scenes, and I loved the introduction to the staff and owners and their particular flavour of kink. I feel that all these people will have amazing tales to tell and I really look forward to them!
Micah and Parker's story has some difficult themes: death of a parent, withdrawl from life of another, obnoxious families, and all that entails. I loved how each topic was dealt with. Parker tries with his dad, he really does, but it's not until Parker lays it all out with his dad, that dad then tries too. Micah's family caused all his problems, caused him to run, but he always thought they would come round. It's not until his sister Eva, comes out to them, that they show their true colours and Micah decides enough is enough.
It's Eva who gets the next story, her and Pixie hit it right off when she visits Micah. I look forward to reading that book!!
I can't give it anything other than . . . .
5 full and shiny, and super smexy stars!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Iron Lady (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Meryl Streep certainly has an impressive roster of films under her belt. She’s reduced Anne Hathaway to tears in The Devil Wears Prada, she’s played the role of struggling hotelier in the all singing, all dancing Mamma Mia and has racked up an astonishing 16 Oscar nominations for films like Kramer vs. Kramer and Sophie’s Choice. However, here, she perhaps takes on her biggest role to date portraying arguably the most controversial figure in British politics; Baroness Thatcher. Can she pull it off? Did you really need to ask?
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Sutton and Ethan Montclair had the ideal life--a beautiful marriage, a gorgeous house, successful writing careers, and a beautiful baby son. But with the death of their baby, Dashiell, things started to crumble. Peering into the cracks, it was clear that Ethan's career isn't going well and Sutton was depressed and broken after Dashiell's death. So when Ethan wakes up and finds a note from Sutton telling him that she's left and not to look for her, he doesn't know what to think. Did she really run off, leaving her phone, laptop, credit cards, and ID behind? Or did something more sinister happen? As for Ethan and Sutton's friends--and the police--they quickly start to wonder if the something sinister is Ethan.
So in the years since [b:Gone Girl|19288043|Gone Girl|Gillian Flynn|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1397056917s/19288043.jpg|13306276] has come out, I've seen so many books compared to that juggernaut and felt that so little truly were similar (and keep in mind that I wasn't one of those that *adored* the novel). However, reading LIE TO ME, I felt like this book really deserved the plot comparison to GONE GIRL -- wife missing, volatile marriage, husband under suspicion, unreliable narrators, etc. For a while, I was curious how [a:J.T. Ellison|1311949|J.T. Ellison|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1450824118p2/1311949.jpg] would differentiate her novel from GONE GIRL, but she pulled it off (more on that later).
<i>This novel was compulsively readable</i>; I read it basically in two sittings. I stayed up until midnight to finish it, which is no small feat considering my small children don't care how late I stay up! It slowly builds suspense with the unknown, dropping little hints as to bits and pieces of the story. We start with Ethan's piece of the story, eventually switch to Sutton, and then finish with both of them. Interspersed are various portions where an unknown "narrator" speaks directly to us, the reader, as well as the police. All of this <i>creates suspicion and tension</i> and lets us know that we certainly have unreliable narrators in both Ethan and Sutton. Who do we believe? Even the police--called in to investigate Sutton's disappearance--are confused. <i>I was completely hooked and, honestly, madly flipping the pages. </i>
The Sutton portion slowed things down slightly, but things rapidly picked back up. I won't lie (ha), I worked out some of the plot, but it certainly didn't diminish my enjoyment of the novel, and I definitely didn't figure out everything. <i>The book's a little crazy, with a slightly wild plot, but it's a fun and thrilling read.</i> The supporting cast is interesting--especially a policewoman itching to become a detective, and some of Sutton and Ethan's friends. As I mentioned, the plot is a little insane, but fun crazy, and Ellison weaves together all the pieces quite effectively.
This is my second novel by Ellison and I'm finding that I just enjoy the suspense and escapism of her novels. (You can read my review of her novel, NO ONE KNOWS, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1460145588?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">here</a>;). The book isn't always perfect, but it's a really enjoyable thriller, hence the 4-star rating--which makes it higher than GONE GIRL for me. Sacrilege for some, but I just enjoyed this one more.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 09/05/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
So in the years since [b:Gone Girl|19288043|Gone Girl|Gillian Flynn|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1397056917s/19288043.jpg|13306276] has come out, I've seen so many books compared to that juggernaut and felt that so little truly were similar (and keep in mind that I wasn't one of those that *adored* the novel). However, reading LIE TO ME, I felt like this book really deserved the plot comparison to GONE GIRL -- wife missing, volatile marriage, husband under suspicion, unreliable narrators, etc. For a while, I was curious how [a:J.T. Ellison|1311949|J.T. Ellison|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1450824118p2/1311949.jpg] would differentiate her novel from GONE GIRL, but she pulled it off (more on that later).
<i>This novel was compulsively readable</i>; I read it basically in two sittings. I stayed up until midnight to finish it, which is no small feat considering my small children don't care how late I stay up! It slowly builds suspense with the unknown, dropping little hints as to bits and pieces of the story. We start with Ethan's piece of the story, eventually switch to Sutton, and then finish with both of them. Interspersed are various portions where an unknown "narrator" speaks directly to us, the reader, as well as the police. All of this <i>creates suspicion and tension</i> and lets us know that we certainly have unreliable narrators in both Ethan and Sutton. Who do we believe? Even the police--called in to investigate Sutton's disappearance--are confused. <i>I was completely hooked and, honestly, madly flipping the pages. </i>
The Sutton portion slowed things down slightly, but things rapidly picked back up. I won't lie (ha), I worked out some of the plot, but it certainly didn't diminish my enjoyment of the novel, and I definitely didn't figure out everything. <i>The book's a little crazy, with a slightly wild plot, but it's a fun and thrilling read.</i> The supporting cast is interesting--especially a policewoman itching to become a detective, and some of Sutton and Ethan's friends. As I mentioned, the plot is a little insane, but fun crazy, and Ellison weaves together all the pieces quite effectively.
This is my second novel by Ellison and I'm finding that I just enjoy the suspense and escapism of her novels. (You can read my review of her novel, NO ONE KNOWS, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1460145588?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">here</a>;). The book isn't always perfect, but it's a really enjoyable thriller, hence the 4-star rating--which makes it higher than GONE GIRL for me. Sacrilege for some, but I just enjoyed this one more.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 09/05/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Martyrs (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
As a young girl, Lucie was able to escape certain death as she was held captive and tortured onto the brink of death. Now, fifteen years later, she seeks revenge on those who hurt her emotionally, physically, and mentally. The only person she's ever been close to is, her friend, Anna. As Lucie leaves a path of destruction and mayhem on her quest for revenge, Anna is dragged along to help pick up the pieces. In an odd twist, Lucie is haunted by a woman whose sole purpose is to hurt her, but only shows up after Lucie unleashes all of her built up pain and anger. Anna begins to question Lucie's sanity as things take a turn for the worst. That is until Anna discovers the chained up woman in the basement...
Martyrs wasn't really what I was expecting at all. I was expecting something along the lines of Haute Tension and À l'intérieur since it's classified as a French horror film. I was left with something completely different as Martyrs tends to be on a level all on its own. It is extremely brutal. I've heard it is more along the lines of Irréversible, but since I haven't seen that I can't really elaborate on it. It left with me with the same feeling The Girl Next Door did. This uneasiness that made me question sitting through the movie again anytime soon. Yet, at the same time, not many horror films are capable of making me feel this way. So I'm not really sure if I should view this as a flaw or a virtue. It also reminded me of Hostel, at times, especially the closing act of the film. Before people grown or anything, let me explain. It reminds me of Hostel if it was done correctly and focused on young girls the entire time. For me, Hostel had an excellent idea but was executed the wrong way. Martyrs pretty much brought what I had in mind for that film to life and did it better. Martyrs is definitely its own film, but its influences and/or homages seem to stick out like a sore thumb to someone who watches a lot of films and/or reviews them.
On first viewing, I can't really say if I liked why this was being done to these girls. It is explained and as it makes sense on one hand, it seems a bit farfetched on the other. It may grow on me during repeat viewings, but it didn't really sit well with me this particular time. The brutality in the film isn't always what is shown on screen either. There's a scene where this bulky guy is beating the snot out of this girl; just punching her in the face repeatedly as hard as he can. You can't really see the damage he's doing to her, but you can hear it and you can tell he's giving her quite a beating. During one of the more gruesome parts, the sound almost completely fades away and the shot relies completely on the girl's facial expressions as you see her begin to shake. As disturbing as it was, it was interesting seeing anguish portrayed a bit differently as the film went on.
Martyrs definitely delivers in more than one department. Those who are looking for another sick, twisted, and brutal French horror film won't be disappointed and let's just say the film lives up to the meaning of its title. Be advised that this is on the same brutality level as High Tension and there are plenty of scenes to cringe to and scream at in this film.
Martyrs wasn't really what I was expecting at all. I was expecting something along the lines of Haute Tension and À l'intérieur since it's classified as a French horror film. I was left with something completely different as Martyrs tends to be on a level all on its own. It is extremely brutal. I've heard it is more along the lines of Irréversible, but since I haven't seen that I can't really elaborate on it. It left with me with the same feeling The Girl Next Door did. This uneasiness that made me question sitting through the movie again anytime soon. Yet, at the same time, not many horror films are capable of making me feel this way. So I'm not really sure if I should view this as a flaw or a virtue. It also reminded me of Hostel, at times, especially the closing act of the film. Before people grown or anything, let me explain. It reminds me of Hostel if it was done correctly and focused on young girls the entire time. For me, Hostel had an excellent idea but was executed the wrong way. Martyrs pretty much brought what I had in mind for that film to life and did it better. Martyrs is definitely its own film, but its influences and/or homages seem to stick out like a sore thumb to someone who watches a lot of films and/or reviews them.
On first viewing, I can't really say if I liked why this was being done to these girls. It is explained and as it makes sense on one hand, it seems a bit farfetched on the other. It may grow on me during repeat viewings, but it didn't really sit well with me this particular time. The brutality in the film isn't always what is shown on screen either. There's a scene where this bulky guy is beating the snot out of this girl; just punching her in the face repeatedly as hard as he can. You can't really see the damage he's doing to her, but you can hear it and you can tell he's giving her quite a beating. During one of the more gruesome parts, the sound almost completely fades away and the shot relies completely on the girl's facial expressions as you see her begin to shake. As disturbing as it was, it was interesting seeing anguish portrayed a bit differently as the film went on.
Martyrs definitely delivers in more than one department. Those who are looking for another sick, twisted, and brutal French horror film won't be disappointed and let's just say the film lives up to the meaning of its title. Be advised that this is on the same brutality level as High Tension and there are plenty of scenes to cringe to and scream at in this film.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Sophie: A Murder In West Cork in TV
Jul 31, 2021
Sophie: A Murder in West Cork, is one of Netflix’s newest true crime series offerings. Consisting of three episodes, the series examines the murder case of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier, a French National that was murdered at her rural holiday getaway home in Schull, Ireland in 1996. Du Plantier’s murder was the first in over 100 years in the small town and remains technically unsolved.
The documentary series had a wide variety of talking heads, from Du Planier’s family, friends, locals, various members of the Garda, and surprisingly, the main suspect. Du Planier’s private life seemed complicated, and it was definitely going to be utilized against her throughout the entire thing.
The case was interesting, Du Planier was found in a bramble bush a few days before Christmas. With seemingly no leads, and a haphazard investigation, I didn’t know how they would end up with a suspect. The first episode set everything up, establishing what the town was like by interviewing the locals. There was even a little spookiness brought in. A few days before her death, Du Planier had visited some ruins, and saw a white lady, which was an omen of death. Pretty interesting, and you wouldn’t think it was pertinent, however, Du Planier took it seriously.
If you watch enough true crime documentaries, you know normally what a killer would do, revisit the scene, be overly helpful, etc. It was clear as soon as they introduced the journalist that he was indeed the suspect. However, when the second episode started, the series was taken over by the main suspect, journalist and ‘poet’, Ian Bailey. As one of Du Planier’s family members quipped, he loves to be interviewed.
Somehow, Bailey had all of this insider knowledge, and wrote somewhat salacious articles about Du Planier, painting her as this woman that entertained all sorts of men. He was also very adamant that the murder was French, and probably her partner or another intimate partner. Bailey was somewhat charismatic, but a complete weirdo. It is common for law enforcement to go after the ‘others’ in society, so was he targeted because he was eccentric? Who knows?
It was clear that the Garda in this area had no idea as to what to do. They may have also had a little tunnel vision because the village creep was poking around the crime scene.
I’m all for presenting all sides to a case, but having the suspect take over in a very charismatic way is not the best approach. The Garda in the area, inexperienced in investigating murders, was obviously not equipped to deal with the investigation. It was clear from the beginning that it was the primary reason the case hasn’t been officially prosecuted in Ireland.
Whenever your documentary begins to get overtaken by the number one suspect, rather than the victim, I begin to have issues. It was also interesting that at the end of the series, there was actually a statement that Du Planier had been forgotten throughout the entire event, and while she was present, she wasn’t the center of the story.
Bailey seems to be the most likely culprit, though, the Garda couldn’t have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt. It was interesting that somehow in France, the evidence was considered solid enough for a conviction.
I did generally enjoy the documentary series, but again, I have an issue with the main suspect overshadowing the victim. Also, I didn’t feel like enough evidence was presented, and the majority of it was slightly repetitive. I’m interested to see if the case is ever resolved. Based upon the series, probably not.
The documentary series had a wide variety of talking heads, from Du Planier’s family, friends, locals, various members of the Garda, and surprisingly, the main suspect. Du Planier’s private life seemed complicated, and it was definitely going to be utilized against her throughout the entire thing.
The case was interesting, Du Planier was found in a bramble bush a few days before Christmas. With seemingly no leads, and a haphazard investigation, I didn’t know how they would end up with a suspect. The first episode set everything up, establishing what the town was like by interviewing the locals. There was even a little spookiness brought in. A few days before her death, Du Planier had visited some ruins, and saw a white lady, which was an omen of death. Pretty interesting, and you wouldn’t think it was pertinent, however, Du Planier took it seriously.
If you watch enough true crime documentaries, you know normally what a killer would do, revisit the scene, be overly helpful, etc. It was clear as soon as they introduced the journalist that he was indeed the suspect. However, when the second episode started, the series was taken over by the main suspect, journalist and ‘poet’, Ian Bailey. As one of Du Planier’s family members quipped, he loves to be interviewed.
Somehow, Bailey had all of this insider knowledge, and wrote somewhat salacious articles about Du Planier, painting her as this woman that entertained all sorts of men. He was also very adamant that the murder was French, and probably her partner or another intimate partner. Bailey was somewhat charismatic, but a complete weirdo. It is common for law enforcement to go after the ‘others’ in society, so was he targeted because he was eccentric? Who knows?
It was clear that the Garda in this area had no idea as to what to do. They may have also had a little tunnel vision because the village creep was poking around the crime scene.
I’m all for presenting all sides to a case, but having the suspect take over in a very charismatic way is not the best approach. The Garda in the area, inexperienced in investigating murders, was obviously not equipped to deal with the investigation. It was clear from the beginning that it was the primary reason the case hasn’t been officially prosecuted in Ireland.
Whenever your documentary begins to get overtaken by the number one suspect, rather than the victim, I begin to have issues. It was also interesting that at the end of the series, there was actually a statement that Du Planier had been forgotten throughout the entire event, and while she was present, she wasn’t the center of the story.
Bailey seems to be the most likely culprit, though, the Garda couldn’t have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt. It was interesting that somehow in France, the evidence was considered solid enough for a conviction.
I did generally enjoy the documentary series, but again, I have an issue with the main suspect overshadowing the victim. Also, I didn’t feel like enough evidence was presented, and the majority of it was slightly repetitive. I’m interested to see if the case is ever resolved. Based upon the series, probably not.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 30, 2020 (Updated Jul 1, 2020)
Gameplay (2 more)
Graphics
Sound
I'm Not Mad, I'm Just Disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been a while since I've written anything, but I couldn't let this one go by without saying anything about it.
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated LifeShift in Books
Sep 13, 2018
www.diaryofdifference.com
Things can change in a moment. All it takes it that tiny second that can turn our lives upside down. This happened to Alex. See, one day, he is just this unpopular boy that goes to school, and works to earn a little something for himself. Then, in one little moment, he is about to be hit by a train. Only - a miracle happens and he remains alive. But something changed. No, EVERYTHING changed. A new girl comes to school the next morning and tells him he is an Eternal, just like her, a person that lives many lives and keeps getting reborn. He is also supposed to remember his past lives once he turns 18. And not only that, but he also needs to go on a mission to find another Eternal, that would lead them to Zeus.
Bonus: This book is filled with Greek Mythology characters, but they are not the Greek Gods as we know them - they are all Eternals and have a special new fictional story.
I know some of you guys messaged me that the synopsis of the book looked so complicated, and it put you off. The story is actually quite interesting and easy to understand, once you start reading it. So go on, and put this on your TBRs!
The story and the plot itself are so unique - I haven’t read anything like this before. Michael managed to recreate a whole new world, and new type of creatures - Eternals. I loved the idea of the Eternals - people that have many lives and remember their previous lives. They can even choose where they want to get born next, and how to look. I also loved the superpowers they have - communicating through thoughts and dreams, healing, reading the past of a person by touching their hand… However, in many places in the book this was described too fast and too wide - there would be 5 pages of an essay of only description. I would much prefer if we could explore the story and history through the characters more.
The characters were likable. All of them. I liked Alex - he was a typical American boy. Sometimes a bit oblivious to everything happening around him. I found it a bit upsetting how he couldn’t choose who he wanted to be with. But on the other side, I quite admired him for how he coped when his world just changed in an instant, and so many people he knew were not what he thought they were, and on top of that he had to choose who to trust and who not to, and he had to agree to go on a mission that risks his life, even though he still couldn’t remember if he was an Eternal, which meant that maybe he is not like them at all.
Circe was an interesting character too. Such an energetic person with a wild personality - she would be the one that brightens up a room as soon as she walks into it. She can also be very possessive of the people she loves. She quite reminds me of myself in my teenage years in everything she did - funny, reckless moments - all worth remembering. Even though I couldn’t find a favourite character, all the people we meet in the book were equally loved by me.
This is an amazing story - a fiction fantasy that gathered Greek Mythology characters and created something entirely new. I enjoyed it a lot and I can’t wait for the next book of the series to come out. This book opens up a great discussion about people that can be reborn and remember their past. My view on life is that once we die, our soul goes into another body that gets born in the exact same moment, and even though we don’t remember it, we always carry a piece of that inside our hearts. There are occasions though, where some people remember their past lives.
What are your thoughts about life after death? Would you maybe pick this book up?
A special thank you to the author, Michael Kott, who send me a copy of LifeShift in exchange for an honest review. All my thoughts are my own, and completely unbiased.
Things can change in a moment. All it takes it that tiny second that can turn our lives upside down. This happened to Alex. See, one day, he is just this unpopular boy that goes to school, and works to earn a little something for himself. Then, in one little moment, he is about to be hit by a train. Only - a miracle happens and he remains alive. But something changed. No, EVERYTHING changed. A new girl comes to school the next morning and tells him he is an Eternal, just like her, a person that lives many lives and keeps getting reborn. He is also supposed to remember his past lives once he turns 18. And not only that, but he also needs to go on a mission to find another Eternal, that would lead them to Zeus.
Bonus: This book is filled with Greek Mythology characters, but they are not the Greek Gods as we know them - they are all Eternals and have a special new fictional story.
I know some of you guys messaged me that the synopsis of the book looked so complicated, and it put you off. The story is actually quite interesting and easy to understand, once you start reading it. So go on, and put this on your TBRs!
The story and the plot itself are so unique - I haven’t read anything like this before. Michael managed to recreate a whole new world, and new type of creatures - Eternals. I loved the idea of the Eternals - people that have many lives and remember their previous lives. They can even choose where they want to get born next, and how to look. I also loved the superpowers they have - communicating through thoughts and dreams, healing, reading the past of a person by touching their hand… However, in many places in the book this was described too fast and too wide - there would be 5 pages of an essay of only description. I would much prefer if we could explore the story and history through the characters more.
The characters were likable. All of them. I liked Alex - he was a typical American boy. Sometimes a bit oblivious to everything happening around him. I found it a bit upsetting how he couldn’t choose who he wanted to be with. But on the other side, I quite admired him for how he coped when his world just changed in an instant, and so many people he knew were not what he thought they were, and on top of that he had to choose who to trust and who not to, and he had to agree to go on a mission that risks his life, even though he still couldn’t remember if he was an Eternal, which meant that maybe he is not like them at all.
Circe was an interesting character too. Such an energetic person with a wild personality - she would be the one that brightens up a room as soon as she walks into it. She can also be very possessive of the people she loves. She quite reminds me of myself in my teenage years in everything she did - funny, reckless moments - all worth remembering. Even though I couldn’t find a favourite character, all the people we meet in the book were equally loved by me.
This is an amazing story - a fiction fantasy that gathered Greek Mythology characters and created something entirely new. I enjoyed it a lot and I can’t wait for the next book of the series to come out. This book opens up a great discussion about people that can be reborn and remember their past. My view on life is that once we die, our soul goes into another body that gets born in the exact same moment, and even though we don’t remember it, we always carry a piece of that inside our hearts. There are occasions though, where some people remember their past lives.
What are your thoughts about life after death? Would you maybe pick this book up?
A special thank you to the author, Michael Kott, who send me a copy of LifeShift in exchange for an honest review. All my thoughts are my own, and completely unbiased.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated The Secrets We Keep in Books
May 10, 2018
Kit Stitski is dead. He fell into the quarry during a party and drowned and ever since June no one has been able to come forward to say what really happened to him. Now that school has started, his mother is making a plea with the students to come forward with what they know. Was it just a tragic accident or did someone do something to Kit? Clementine was there, she spoke with Kit and sent him off to the bushes when he said he had to go to the bathroom. Ellie was there too, she is keeping Clementine's secret, but does she have a secret of her own? Jake was there, in fact, Kit followed him to the party. And Mac was there with Ellie, did he do something to Kit?
As a new school year starts, everyone is reflecting on the tragic night at the end of the previous school year. They've had the whole summer to think about it and now that school is back in session, Ms. Stitski wants answers and closure about what happened with her son. When she shows up for the first day of school, Jake, Clementine, Ellie, and Mac are all on edge because they feel they are responsible for Kit's death. They can't imagine that this was just an accident, something must of happened to him when he was out of their sight. But is that possible?
I really enjoyed this YA novel by Deb Loughead. I was a quick read that kept me engrossed the entire time. The author never really mentions where the story is set, and it could be any town in any country. Kids will be kids and will do what they want despite the rules set by their parents. None of the kids should have been at the quarry that night. It's a dangerous place and even more so when it is dark. Kit was mentally challenged, but loved by all in the school. The students recall happy moments with Kit that help his family to heal after this difficult situation. This is a story you could see in today's news stories. A tragic accident that took the life of an innocent person.
I think people of all ages will enjoy this book. I think it is especially important for youth to read. It has a message of honesty in the book. About being able to talk to your parents about the things that are going on in your world. The book has a strong family focus and includes diverse family structures that are seen today. I recommend this book for anyone who is looking for a good novel to read.
Thank you to NetGalley and Dundurn for the opportunity to review this book.
As a new school year starts, everyone is reflecting on the tragic night at the end of the previous school year. They've had the whole summer to think about it and now that school is back in session, Ms. Stitski wants answers and closure about what happened with her son. When she shows up for the first day of school, Jake, Clementine, Ellie, and Mac are all on edge because they feel they are responsible for Kit's death. They can't imagine that this was just an accident, something must of happened to him when he was out of their sight. But is that possible?
I really enjoyed this YA novel by Deb Loughead. I was a quick read that kept me engrossed the entire time. The author never really mentions where the story is set, and it could be any town in any country. Kids will be kids and will do what they want despite the rules set by their parents. None of the kids should have been at the quarry that night. It's a dangerous place and even more so when it is dark. Kit was mentally challenged, but loved by all in the school. The students recall happy moments with Kit that help his family to heal after this difficult situation. This is a story you could see in today's news stories. A tragic accident that took the life of an innocent person.
I think people of all ages will enjoy this book. I think it is especially important for youth to read. It has a message of honesty in the book. About being able to talk to your parents about the things that are going on in your world. The book has a strong family focus and includes diverse family structures that are seen today. I recommend this book for anyone who is looking for a good novel to read.
Thank you to NetGalley and Dundurn for the opportunity to review this book.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated On the Come Up in Books
Apr 4, 2019
This was an excellent follow-up to THE HATE YOU GIVE. Man, Angie Thomas can just flat out write, and the characters and worlds she creates are second to none. This book occurs in the same neighborhood as THUG, picking up a year after the riots. The neighborhood is still reeling, and nothing is quite the same.
"I'm a hoodlum from a bunch of nothing."
Bri is a wonderful character--a realistic teenager struggling with her love life and school, as well as the systematic issues of poverty, racism, drug dealing, and more facing her neighborhood, peers, and family. She's severely affected by what happened to her parents: the death of her father, who is famous in the Garden, and her mom's past drug use. The book does a great job of showing the pressures on everyone in Bri's family--her older brother went to college, but is back, living at home and working in a pizza shop, trying to help his mom out. Her mom is still paying for her past sins: trying to get a job isn't easy, nor is it easy to keep the faith of your teenage daughter, who calls her mom by her first name. And Bri--well she wants to become a rapper and earn money to get her family out of poverty. As such, she doesn't always make the best choices. And, to her, it almost seems like rapper is the only choice for freedom.
"That's how it goes though. The drug dealers in my neighborhood aren't struggling. Everybody else is."
Don't get me wrong, though. While this book is beautiful and does such a great job at showing so many of the challenges facing Bri and the Garden's community, it's also an engaging and funny read. As I said, Thomas is such an amazing writer. The church scenes in this novel are priceless: I was laughing at loud at some points. And Bri is just so vivid in her characteristics. She's a self-proclaimed "nerd" who loves things like Star Wars and some of her references and jokes in the books are just hilarious.
The supporting cast in this one is great--Bri's brother, her friends (including a gay BFF!), Aunt Pooh, the church biddies, and more. They all jump off the pages just like Bri. Much like THUG, this is a story of family at its core and even if you'll want to shake Bri for some of her bad decisions, it's pretty much impossible not to love her, her family, and her friends.
Overall, I really liked this book. It's well-written, tackles some serious topics in a great way, and yet is funny and poignant as well. I highly recommend it. 4+ stars.
"I'm a hoodlum from a bunch of nothing."
Bri is a wonderful character--a realistic teenager struggling with her love life and school, as well as the systematic issues of poverty, racism, drug dealing, and more facing her neighborhood, peers, and family. She's severely affected by what happened to her parents: the death of her father, who is famous in the Garden, and her mom's past drug use. The book does a great job of showing the pressures on everyone in Bri's family--her older brother went to college, but is back, living at home and working in a pizza shop, trying to help his mom out. Her mom is still paying for her past sins: trying to get a job isn't easy, nor is it easy to keep the faith of your teenage daughter, who calls her mom by her first name. And Bri--well she wants to become a rapper and earn money to get her family out of poverty. As such, she doesn't always make the best choices. And, to her, it almost seems like rapper is the only choice for freedom.
"That's how it goes though. The drug dealers in my neighborhood aren't struggling. Everybody else is."
Don't get me wrong, though. While this book is beautiful and does such a great job at showing so many of the challenges facing Bri and the Garden's community, it's also an engaging and funny read. As I said, Thomas is such an amazing writer. The church scenes in this novel are priceless: I was laughing at loud at some points. And Bri is just so vivid in her characteristics. She's a self-proclaimed "nerd" who loves things like Star Wars and some of her references and jokes in the books are just hilarious.
The supporting cast in this one is great--Bri's brother, her friends (including a gay BFF!), Aunt Pooh, the church biddies, and more. They all jump off the pages just like Bri. Much like THUG, this is a story of family at its core and even if you'll want to shake Bri for some of her bad decisions, it's pretty much impossible not to love her, her family, and her friends.
Overall, I really liked this book. It's well-written, tackles some serious topics in a great way, and yet is funny and poignant as well. I highly recommend it. 4+ stars.