Search
Search results
Luke (12 KP) rated Bloodborne in Video Games
Oct 2, 2017
Strategic, challenging, and rewarding combat (6 more)
Excellent orchestrated soundtrack
Great aesthetic and visual design
Cool boss designs
Old Hunters expansion adds extra challenge
30-40 hour campaign with loads of content
Lovecraftian horror at its finest
Bloodborne is an action RPG developed by From Software and directed by Hidetaka Miyazaki, creator of the Dark Souls series. Bloodborne takes elements from the Dark Souls games and mixes in elements of Gothic and Lovecraftian horror to make one truly unique experience exclusively for the Playstation 4.
You play as a Hunter and you have come to the city of Yharnam on the night of the Hunt where the lines between man and beast are blurred. Initially, your goal is quite simple: just go out and kill some beasts of all manner. Everything from werewolves to madmen to even other NPC Hunters. But as you progress through the game, you begin to unravel a conspiracy involving ancient gods from the cosmos coming down to incite this madness upon the townsfolk. Souls games aren't really known for their stories. Most of the game's backstory can often be found in item descriptions. However, Bloodborne differentiates itself by having one of the most fleshed out and intriguing plots of the entire Soulsborne series.
The presentation here is breathtaking. It evokes the style of olden Gothic horror tales from days long past. Towering spires line the horizon clearly inspired by Victorian and Gothic style architecture of Romania and this is reflected in the games level design. Blood spills out in a vibrant crimson color. Most of the game is completely silent save for the excellent sound design. The soundtrack only kicks in during boss fights and other key moments in the game making it even more special.
If you are familiar with any of the Dark Souls games, then you pretty much know what to expect from Bloodborne's combat. Bloodborne emphasizes speed and aggression with its combat system, but it is still quite strategic and very challenging. Don't go in thinking you can just rush through this in a weekend. This game takes patience and effort from the player to be rewarded. The weapon variety is significantly smaller than that of the Dark Souls games, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Each weapon feels unique, and each one will cater to a specific play style. And since you can transform almost all the weapons in the game, they almost feel like two weapons in one. For example, a shortsword can be transformed into a greatsword and so on. Instead of giving you a shield, Bloodborne instead gives you a wide variety of firearms, from pistols and shotguns, to a flamesprayer and a cannon. You can use these guns on enemies to riposte and perform a visceral attack for massive damage, even on some of the bosses. Armor sets are all really cool, reflecting the games Gothic design. The good thing is that you don't need to worry about upgrading armor sets like in previous Souls games. And the boss designs here are great, some of the hardest and most challenging fights in any game. You have to learn and figure out the timings of their attacks in order to know when best to strike. And if you ever feel like you're getting stuck, you can always bring in a friend with the game's co-op system. The side characters are also great, some of them giving you optional quests that you can carry out if you choose to do so.
There are optional chalice dungeons that you can complete should you choose to do so. The good thing is that they aren't required to finish the game. The bad thing is that these aren't designed as well as the main game. These dungeons are randomly generated and it certainly feels that way as rooms are often copy pasted together to the point where you feel like you're going in circles. Enemy designs are also lazy as hell here, some of them being reused as bosses. It feels like these chalice dungeons were thrown in at the last minute to offer some kind of replay value when they clearly weren't needed in the first place. I'm baffled by their inclusion as some trophies are linked to the completion of these optional missions. But since these are completely optional, they don't take away from the overall score.
There are also a few more minor gripes that I have with Bloodborne. The camera can often get in the way of the surrounding architecture at times. The framerate dips during some instances, even after several patches. Fortunately, these things don't happen all that often. And why can't I warp between lanterns? This doesn't make much sense as if you want to get to a new area, you have to warp to the hub zone and then warp to the area you want to go to. I feel like this would save a lot of load times if you are going back and forth for farming runs. Oh well.
Bloodborne is never impossibly hard. It does have a high learning curve for new players, but if you keep at it and if you are patient enough, you will discover just how rewarding this experience can be. This was my first foray into the Souls series and I am so looking forward to going back in to Bloodborne to try out new builds, new play styles, new weapons, and even greater challenge in New Game Plus mode. Bloodborne is now one of my all time favorite games ever made.
You play as a Hunter and you have come to the city of Yharnam on the night of the Hunt where the lines between man and beast are blurred. Initially, your goal is quite simple: just go out and kill some beasts of all manner. Everything from werewolves to madmen to even other NPC Hunters. But as you progress through the game, you begin to unravel a conspiracy involving ancient gods from the cosmos coming down to incite this madness upon the townsfolk. Souls games aren't really known for their stories. Most of the game's backstory can often be found in item descriptions. However, Bloodborne differentiates itself by having one of the most fleshed out and intriguing plots of the entire Soulsborne series.
The presentation here is breathtaking. It evokes the style of olden Gothic horror tales from days long past. Towering spires line the horizon clearly inspired by Victorian and Gothic style architecture of Romania and this is reflected in the games level design. Blood spills out in a vibrant crimson color. Most of the game is completely silent save for the excellent sound design. The soundtrack only kicks in during boss fights and other key moments in the game making it even more special.
If you are familiar with any of the Dark Souls games, then you pretty much know what to expect from Bloodborne's combat. Bloodborne emphasizes speed and aggression with its combat system, but it is still quite strategic and very challenging. Don't go in thinking you can just rush through this in a weekend. This game takes patience and effort from the player to be rewarded. The weapon variety is significantly smaller than that of the Dark Souls games, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Each weapon feels unique, and each one will cater to a specific play style. And since you can transform almost all the weapons in the game, they almost feel like two weapons in one. For example, a shortsword can be transformed into a greatsword and so on. Instead of giving you a shield, Bloodborne instead gives you a wide variety of firearms, from pistols and shotguns, to a flamesprayer and a cannon. You can use these guns on enemies to riposte and perform a visceral attack for massive damage, even on some of the bosses. Armor sets are all really cool, reflecting the games Gothic design. The good thing is that you don't need to worry about upgrading armor sets like in previous Souls games. And the boss designs here are great, some of the hardest and most challenging fights in any game. You have to learn and figure out the timings of their attacks in order to know when best to strike. And if you ever feel like you're getting stuck, you can always bring in a friend with the game's co-op system. The side characters are also great, some of them giving you optional quests that you can carry out if you choose to do so.
There are optional chalice dungeons that you can complete should you choose to do so. The good thing is that they aren't required to finish the game. The bad thing is that these aren't designed as well as the main game. These dungeons are randomly generated and it certainly feels that way as rooms are often copy pasted together to the point where you feel like you're going in circles. Enemy designs are also lazy as hell here, some of them being reused as bosses. It feels like these chalice dungeons were thrown in at the last minute to offer some kind of replay value when they clearly weren't needed in the first place. I'm baffled by their inclusion as some trophies are linked to the completion of these optional missions. But since these are completely optional, they don't take away from the overall score.
There are also a few more minor gripes that I have with Bloodborne. The camera can often get in the way of the surrounding architecture at times. The framerate dips during some instances, even after several patches. Fortunately, these things don't happen all that often. And why can't I warp between lanterns? This doesn't make much sense as if you want to get to a new area, you have to warp to the hub zone and then warp to the area you want to go to. I feel like this would save a lot of load times if you are going back and forth for farming runs. Oh well.
Bloodborne is never impossibly hard. It does have a high learning curve for new players, but if you keep at it and if you are patient enough, you will discover just how rewarding this experience can be. This was my first foray into the Souls series and I am so looking forward to going back in to Bloodborne to try out new builds, new play styles, new weapons, and even greater challenge in New Game Plus mode. Bloodborne is now one of my all time favorite games ever made.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein in Books
Apr 6, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
The most amazing thing about classic horror stories is how they still influence many writers today.
To read 'the Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein,' you don't have to know anything about Mary Shelley's original creation. No, this book seems to take the story of Dr. Frankenstein in a completely different direction than what was known 200 years ago. I, personally, haven't read Shelley's book, but after reading this one, I certainly want to now. Victor Frankenstein is the most interesting character I have read about in a long time.
'The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein' takes us to Victor's childhood, where we observe him becoming the insane doctor that he was in 'Frankenstein' - but this one doesn't pass Victor's 21st birthday, and his creation of a 'creature' is much earlier than in Shelley's version. This book was still very enjoyable,even if it doesn't line up with the classic. But instead of following Victor's descent into darkness, we follow Elizabeth's ascension from darkness through her need to be taken care of for the remainder of her life - 'And if Victor did not seem to respond to my sweetness,I would simply cry. He never could stand it when I cried. It would hurt him. I smiled in anticipation, letting the meanness at my core stretch like ill-used muscles' Another interesting part of this book is seeing how well the author, White, creates a sociopathic lead female character, who has tailored herself to wearing the right faces and acting a certain way to get what she wants.
We enter the book with Elizabeth and her good friend, Justine, on a trip to find Victor, who has stopped writing from school some months before - Victor's mother had died before he left, and now Elizabeth was questioning whether or not his father was going to keep her around. We get flash backs here and there of Elizabeth and Victor as children together. The reader is shown that Elizabeth is the only person who can calm Victor during his 'rages,' and she seems to be the only person he allowed inside his world. We're led to believe that Elizabeth truly cares for Victor,but quickly we are told that she only cares if she has a roof over her head or not. Eventually, Elizabeth finds Victor, but he is in the midst of a fever - an ailment he falls under quite often whenever his studies would keep him from eating, drinking and sleeping - he whispers in a fever state 'Do not tell Elizabeth.' and 'It worked.' The horror quickly takes place when Elizabeth explores his surroundings to find a makeshift lab with body parts,both human and animal.
The book spends a lot of time with Elizabeth waiting on Victor, usually for him to return home to the Frankenstein estate. Although White does an amazing job of bringing back words and writing that was of 200 years ago, sometimes it seems she's too busy concentrating on that rather than paying attention to consistency. The story had me glued to the book from part one, but what really kept me going was the character, Victor. If this entire story had been from his point of view, I would have put this book at the top of my favorite books list. This also should have been titled 'the Dark Descent of Victor Frankenstein,' because it's Victor who seems to slowly descend into madness, not Elizabeth, she seems to know what he is going to become, but because she is so occupied with keeping her place at the Frankenstein household, she does nothing to stop it.
Victor, by today's standards, is a murderer in the making:
"The deer stopped keening. It did not die as Victor tugged the knife through the skin over its stomach. I had imagined it parting like the crust of a loaf of bread,but it was tough, resistant. The sound of tearing made me sick. I turned away as Victor strained to make progress with blood coating his hands and making the knife slippery."
Elizabeth takes great measures to keep Victor out of trouble,even when he nearly severs the arm of his little brother out of curiosity. She focuses on keeping the little brother alive, then placing blame on the nursemaid by planting a pair of scissors from her sewing supplies. Elizabeth was not only a good liar, but she was also an antagonist. When Victor seems to not be able to cope with what he did to his little brother, she quickly tells him what they will say to his father: " ' We know what happened. It was the nursemaid's fault for leaving out her sewing supplies. She is stupid and lazy and still sleeping. She will be punished and relieved of her duties. Ernest will be fine.' I paused to be sure Victor understood that this was our story,no matter what. 'And we are fortunate that she is stupid and lazy and convenient, and nothing like this will happen again. Will it?' " She may have very well been the reason Victor did the things he did.
Victor, of course, ends up making a monster, but White didn't try to retell the Shelley novel, instead she tried to give it a different spin from a different perspective. As a storyteller, White did an impressive job with wording and flashbacks. For die-hard fans of Shelley's 'Frankenstein,' I wouldn't recommend ' the Dark Decent of Elizabeth Frankenstein' unless you are willing to read it with an open mind. I only wish there had been more scenes with Victor - an unforgettable character.
To read 'the Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein,' you don't have to know anything about Mary Shelley's original creation. No, this book seems to take the story of Dr. Frankenstein in a completely different direction than what was known 200 years ago. I, personally, haven't read Shelley's book, but after reading this one, I certainly want to now. Victor Frankenstein is the most interesting character I have read about in a long time.
'The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein' takes us to Victor's childhood, where we observe him becoming the insane doctor that he was in 'Frankenstein' - but this one doesn't pass Victor's 21st birthday, and his creation of a 'creature' is much earlier than in Shelley's version. This book was still very enjoyable,even if it doesn't line up with the classic. But instead of following Victor's descent into darkness, we follow Elizabeth's ascension from darkness through her need to be taken care of for the remainder of her life - 'And if Victor did not seem to respond to my sweetness,I would simply cry. He never could stand it when I cried. It would hurt him. I smiled in anticipation, letting the meanness at my core stretch like ill-used muscles' Another interesting part of this book is seeing how well the author, White, creates a sociopathic lead female character, who has tailored herself to wearing the right faces and acting a certain way to get what she wants.
We enter the book with Elizabeth and her good friend, Justine, on a trip to find Victor, who has stopped writing from school some months before - Victor's mother had died before he left, and now Elizabeth was questioning whether or not his father was going to keep her around. We get flash backs here and there of Elizabeth and Victor as children together. The reader is shown that Elizabeth is the only person who can calm Victor during his 'rages,' and she seems to be the only person he allowed inside his world. We're led to believe that Elizabeth truly cares for Victor,but quickly we are told that she only cares if she has a roof over her head or not. Eventually, Elizabeth finds Victor, but he is in the midst of a fever - an ailment he falls under quite often whenever his studies would keep him from eating, drinking and sleeping - he whispers in a fever state 'Do not tell Elizabeth.' and 'It worked.' The horror quickly takes place when Elizabeth explores his surroundings to find a makeshift lab with body parts,both human and animal.
The book spends a lot of time with Elizabeth waiting on Victor, usually for him to return home to the Frankenstein estate. Although White does an amazing job of bringing back words and writing that was of 200 years ago, sometimes it seems she's too busy concentrating on that rather than paying attention to consistency. The story had me glued to the book from part one, but what really kept me going was the character, Victor. If this entire story had been from his point of view, I would have put this book at the top of my favorite books list. This also should have been titled 'the Dark Descent of Victor Frankenstein,' because it's Victor who seems to slowly descend into madness, not Elizabeth, she seems to know what he is going to become, but because she is so occupied with keeping her place at the Frankenstein household, she does nothing to stop it.
Victor, by today's standards, is a murderer in the making:
"The deer stopped keening. It did not die as Victor tugged the knife through the skin over its stomach. I had imagined it parting like the crust of a loaf of bread,but it was tough, resistant. The sound of tearing made me sick. I turned away as Victor strained to make progress with blood coating his hands and making the knife slippery."
Elizabeth takes great measures to keep Victor out of trouble,even when he nearly severs the arm of his little brother out of curiosity. She focuses on keeping the little brother alive, then placing blame on the nursemaid by planting a pair of scissors from her sewing supplies. Elizabeth was not only a good liar, but she was also an antagonist. When Victor seems to not be able to cope with what he did to his little brother, she quickly tells him what they will say to his father: " ' We know what happened. It was the nursemaid's fault for leaving out her sewing supplies. She is stupid and lazy and still sleeping. She will be punished and relieved of her duties. Ernest will be fine.' I paused to be sure Victor understood that this was our story,no matter what. 'And we are fortunate that she is stupid and lazy and convenient, and nothing like this will happen again. Will it?' " She may have very well been the reason Victor did the things he did.
Victor, of course, ends up making a monster, but White didn't try to retell the Shelley novel, instead she tried to give it a different spin from a different perspective. As a storyteller, White did an impressive job with wording and flashbacks. For die-hard fans of Shelley's 'Frankenstein,' I wouldn't recommend ' the Dark Decent of Elizabeth Frankenstein' unless you are willing to read it with an open mind. I only wish there had been more scenes with Victor - an unforgettable character.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Riding a wave a fan expectations and anticipation as well as surrounding by the tragic death of Heath Ledger, the latest installment in Writer/Director Christopher Nolan’s Batman Series, “The Dark Knight”, has arrived. Christian Bale once again stars in the dual role of troubled billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne and the masked avenger Batman, as he attempts to bring order to Gotham City.
The film picks up shortly after the events of “Batman Begins” and finds Bruce and his trusty sidekick Alfred (Michael Caine), splitting their time between a lofty penthouse and a secret lair while Wayne Manor is being rebuilt. The streets of Gotham have become safer as thanks to Batman many of the bad elements of the city have either been arrested or driven off.
Batman has a new ally in his fight, as new District Attorney Harvey Dent, (Aaron Eckhart), is waging a personal war on crime, and has vowed to stop at nothing to bring the remaining crime bosses and their associates to justice. Bruce is unsure what to make of Dent, and is further troubled by the growing relationship between Dent and his longtime flame Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal).
Unknown to Batman and Dent, the biggest threat ever to face Gotham City is about to move into the limelight, as a mysterious figure known as The Joker (Heath Ledger), has risen from the ranks of violent bank robber to psychopathic mastermind, attempting to get the remaining crime lords to join him in an scheme to kill Batman and prominent heads of the city to bring utter chaos.
As the Joker’s wave of violence, death, and destruction unfolds, Batman is drawn deeper into turmoil, as he is conflicted by his desire to abandon his Batman alter-ego and leave cleaning up the city to Dent and his trusted ally James Gordon (Gary Oldman). Bruce knows that he cannot be with Rachel as long as Batman is a part of his life, and he wishes he can abandon the fight to live a more normal existence.
As the crime wave escalates and the body count starts to mount, Bruce is driven to the edge as he matches wits with his toughest foe yet, a man who seems capable of matching his every move, and seems to be always one step ahead.
What follows is a truly gripping and enjoyably dark tale of murder, deception, action, and intrigue in what is not only the best Batman film ever but simply the best superhero film ever. This is strong praise considering the solid screen versions of “Spider-Man”, “Iron-Man” and the previous “Batman Beyond”, but Nolan has crafted a true cinematic masterpiece.
The key to the film is not only the solid cast but a serious and intelligent script that allows the actors to truly shine. This is not a thinly veiled comic story where plot and character are secondary to visuals and actions; instead it is a brilliant physiological study of madness, human nature, unchecked ambition, and morality, wrapped in a truly epic story.
Nolan deftly juggles the characters and action and never allows one to overshadow the other. He does not lose sight of the fact that despite the amazing and intense actions and visuals, this is a character driven story.
Many times during the press showing of the film I marveled at the high quality of the story and solid acting in the film. The impressive cast is anchored by a truly incredible performance by Ledger as he portrays the Joker as a deeply disturbed individual who mixes genius with absolute ruthless cunning. The mannerisms of the character are such that Ledger simply becomes the demented killer and at no time appears to be an actor portraying a character, but rather the personification of the character brought to reality.
His scenes with Bale are truly memorable and underscore the vast history between the two characters that has been established over the decades, and emphasizes the fact that, in some ways, Batman and the Joker are similar beings, both troubled souls who deal with their pain in different ways.
Bale is very good at portraying the torment his character lives with day in and day out, as well as the dark and seething rage that threatens to overtake him and his constant struggle to keep it under the control. Lesser actors would be lost against the amazing performance of Ledger, but Bale more than holds his own, and provides gripping cinema at its best during his scenes with Ledger and the talented cast.
Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine bring solid support to the film as their characters provide wisdom, morality, and direction for characters that walk the thin line between good and evil. The only real disappointment in the film for me was that Maggie Gyllenhaal is not given enough to do. She ably takes over the role originated by Katie Holmes, but she is not given any chance to stand out and her moments with Bale do not allow her to further her relationship with Bruce Wayne.
Eckhart gives a solid performance as Harvey Dent and his alter ego Two Face, taking great advantage of the time he was allowed to develop Dent. My only wish would have been for Two Face to have more time to develop as his arrival seems more of an add-on than a point of plot emphasis.
That being said, the film is a true masterpiece that proves you do not have to sacrifice character development and story to deliver a solid action film. The story sets up very well for future installments and I am sure I am not alone in wanting another outing for Nolan and Bale.
The film picks up shortly after the events of “Batman Begins” and finds Bruce and his trusty sidekick Alfred (Michael Caine), splitting their time between a lofty penthouse and a secret lair while Wayne Manor is being rebuilt. The streets of Gotham have become safer as thanks to Batman many of the bad elements of the city have either been arrested or driven off.
Batman has a new ally in his fight, as new District Attorney Harvey Dent, (Aaron Eckhart), is waging a personal war on crime, and has vowed to stop at nothing to bring the remaining crime bosses and their associates to justice. Bruce is unsure what to make of Dent, and is further troubled by the growing relationship between Dent and his longtime flame Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal).
Unknown to Batman and Dent, the biggest threat ever to face Gotham City is about to move into the limelight, as a mysterious figure known as The Joker (Heath Ledger), has risen from the ranks of violent bank robber to psychopathic mastermind, attempting to get the remaining crime lords to join him in an scheme to kill Batman and prominent heads of the city to bring utter chaos.
As the Joker’s wave of violence, death, and destruction unfolds, Batman is drawn deeper into turmoil, as he is conflicted by his desire to abandon his Batman alter-ego and leave cleaning up the city to Dent and his trusted ally James Gordon (Gary Oldman). Bruce knows that he cannot be with Rachel as long as Batman is a part of his life, and he wishes he can abandon the fight to live a more normal existence.
As the crime wave escalates and the body count starts to mount, Bruce is driven to the edge as he matches wits with his toughest foe yet, a man who seems capable of matching his every move, and seems to be always one step ahead.
What follows is a truly gripping and enjoyably dark tale of murder, deception, action, and intrigue in what is not only the best Batman film ever but simply the best superhero film ever. This is strong praise considering the solid screen versions of “Spider-Man”, “Iron-Man” and the previous “Batman Beyond”, but Nolan has crafted a true cinematic masterpiece.
The key to the film is not only the solid cast but a serious and intelligent script that allows the actors to truly shine. This is not a thinly veiled comic story where plot and character are secondary to visuals and actions; instead it is a brilliant physiological study of madness, human nature, unchecked ambition, and morality, wrapped in a truly epic story.
Nolan deftly juggles the characters and action and never allows one to overshadow the other. He does not lose sight of the fact that despite the amazing and intense actions and visuals, this is a character driven story.
Many times during the press showing of the film I marveled at the high quality of the story and solid acting in the film. The impressive cast is anchored by a truly incredible performance by Ledger as he portrays the Joker as a deeply disturbed individual who mixes genius with absolute ruthless cunning. The mannerisms of the character are such that Ledger simply becomes the demented killer and at no time appears to be an actor portraying a character, but rather the personification of the character brought to reality.
His scenes with Bale are truly memorable and underscore the vast history between the two characters that has been established over the decades, and emphasizes the fact that, in some ways, Batman and the Joker are similar beings, both troubled souls who deal with their pain in different ways.
Bale is very good at portraying the torment his character lives with day in and day out, as well as the dark and seething rage that threatens to overtake him and his constant struggle to keep it under the control. Lesser actors would be lost against the amazing performance of Ledger, but Bale more than holds his own, and provides gripping cinema at its best during his scenes with Ledger and the talented cast.
Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine bring solid support to the film as their characters provide wisdom, morality, and direction for characters that walk the thin line between good and evil. The only real disappointment in the film for me was that Maggie Gyllenhaal is not given enough to do. She ably takes over the role originated by Katie Holmes, but she is not given any chance to stand out and her moments with Bale do not allow her to further her relationship with Bruce Wayne.
Eckhart gives a solid performance as Harvey Dent and his alter ego Two Face, taking great advantage of the time he was allowed to develop Dent. My only wish would have been for Two Face to have more time to develop as his arrival seems more of an add-on than a point of plot emphasis.
That being said, the film is a true masterpiece that proves you do not have to sacrifice character development and story to deliver a solid action film. The story sets up very well for future installments and I am sure I am not alone in wanting another outing for Nolan and Bale.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
In 2017 the stale market of “horror” thrillers got a royal shake-up when Jordan Peele made Get Out. All of a sudden it seemed possible again to use the tired genre, that had been relying on gore and jump shocks alone for at least two decades, as a palette for intelligent social commentary and some seriously artistic flourishes. The following year, Ari Aster came out of nowhere with a debut feature that impressed everyone for it’s originality and bravado in this new “art-horror” model – the devisive yet always interesting Hereditary, a film that confused me on first watch, but gave me faith that I could be unnerved again, it’s secret being that you couldn’t compare it to anything since the golden days of the 70s.
So, when I saw the trailer for Midsommar in 2019 and realised it was the same director, it went straight to the top of my must see list. Add to the appeal the significant lure of the lead actress and main character, the extremely promising Florence Pugh, who blew me away for her raw ability in Lady Macbeth, and beguiled me even more in every minute of Chan-Wook Park’s superlative espionage mini-series The Little Drummer Girl, and I knew this was something I didn’t want to miss. Sometimes it only takes two projects on a CV to elevate a future star from obscurity to A-list potential. In Pugh I had already seen enough range, charisma and depth to suspect she was one of those special few. By the end of Midsommar I was convinced of it!
Plot wise, all you need to know going in cold is that Dani (Pugh) racked with grief following early scenes is dragged to Sweden to participate in the Midsommar celebrations of a small isolated community, as her relationship with boyfriend Christian is very much on the rocks and she is in need of some catharsis and release. At first the Idyllic setting, bathed in sunlight you can almost feel, seems refreshing and clean. The whites, yellows and blues of the images are so crisp you can imagine every smell and texture, and you find yourself smiling, despite the fact a creeping unease and sinister secret is already infiltrating the calm in wonderfully subtle ways.
Needless to say it goes to some very dark and strange places. So much so I gasped out loud twice and stood up from my seat involuntarily on one particularly disturbing moment. To try and explain how that unfolds and comes to be is both impossible and would need some big time spoilers, so I won’t do that. It’s enough to say that where you are emotionally at the end of this filmic experience is very, very far from where you started. Much in the same way as Hereditary, you feel you have been dragged by the hair on a very uncomfortable journey that is both strangely unsatisfying, confusing and upsetting; you can’t say you “liked” either film as much as admitting you can’t stop thinking about them and need to see them again to absorb the detail, if indeed you can bear that.
As of writing this I haven’t gone back and watched this again – I’m genuinely wary of putting myself through it a second time! But, I have gone back to Hereditary and appreciated it much more knowing the ending already, and seeing the detail that is there from the beginning, that makes it all make sense in a way it doesn’t first time around. Midsommar, I sense, is the same, in that there has been so much attention to the build up and background that you will see and hear relevant clues to the mystery much more the more times you watch it. What they are wearing, images on walls and seemingly insignificant things the camera picks up on create a tapestry of loose threads that can be woven together into deeper meaning if that is what you want to do.
Without doing that it may seem like a bewildering entity, deliberately odd for the sake of it, and as such it could put anyone off. At 2 hours and 28 minutes it is a bit of a stretch, and the last half hour, once it descends into the complete madness suggested earlier, perhaps doesn’t live up to the promises it makes. Also, despite Pugh being a mesmeric presence from start to finish, the supporting cast can’t quite go with her on the same level. Even the talented Will Poulter seems burdened by a less than three dimensional character, underwritten as are many in a script that focuses so much on Dani that everything else suffers.
My overall impression of it as a film is that it falls short of greatness by a narrow margin, but comes very close at times to genuine genius. It is the promise of Aster as a filmmaker that excites me most, even if this is not the film it could have been with a little more experience, maturity and, perhaps, budget. It is his Bottle Rocket, or Hard Eight, when you suspect he will have a Grand Budapest Hotel, or a There Will Be Blood in him at some point down the line.
In conclusion, I can’t emphasise enough how much I was drawn to every moment of what Florence Pugh was doing. Be wary of the film if a casual viewing experience is what you want, because it may infuriate you, and compel you even to switch it off, if you are not totally ready to meet it where it wants to take you. But, watch it for Pugh and see what a rare talent she is bringing to cinema into the 2020s. A very exciting prospect indeed.
So, when I saw the trailer for Midsommar in 2019 and realised it was the same director, it went straight to the top of my must see list. Add to the appeal the significant lure of the lead actress and main character, the extremely promising Florence Pugh, who blew me away for her raw ability in Lady Macbeth, and beguiled me even more in every minute of Chan-Wook Park’s superlative espionage mini-series The Little Drummer Girl, and I knew this was something I didn’t want to miss. Sometimes it only takes two projects on a CV to elevate a future star from obscurity to A-list potential. In Pugh I had already seen enough range, charisma and depth to suspect she was one of those special few. By the end of Midsommar I was convinced of it!
Plot wise, all you need to know going in cold is that Dani (Pugh) racked with grief following early scenes is dragged to Sweden to participate in the Midsommar celebrations of a small isolated community, as her relationship with boyfriend Christian is very much on the rocks and she is in need of some catharsis and release. At first the Idyllic setting, bathed in sunlight you can almost feel, seems refreshing and clean. The whites, yellows and blues of the images are so crisp you can imagine every smell and texture, and you find yourself smiling, despite the fact a creeping unease and sinister secret is already infiltrating the calm in wonderfully subtle ways.
Needless to say it goes to some very dark and strange places. So much so I gasped out loud twice and stood up from my seat involuntarily on one particularly disturbing moment. To try and explain how that unfolds and comes to be is both impossible and would need some big time spoilers, so I won’t do that. It’s enough to say that where you are emotionally at the end of this filmic experience is very, very far from where you started. Much in the same way as Hereditary, you feel you have been dragged by the hair on a very uncomfortable journey that is both strangely unsatisfying, confusing and upsetting; you can’t say you “liked” either film as much as admitting you can’t stop thinking about them and need to see them again to absorb the detail, if indeed you can bear that.
As of writing this I haven’t gone back and watched this again – I’m genuinely wary of putting myself through it a second time! But, I have gone back to Hereditary and appreciated it much more knowing the ending already, and seeing the detail that is there from the beginning, that makes it all make sense in a way it doesn’t first time around. Midsommar, I sense, is the same, in that there has been so much attention to the build up and background that you will see and hear relevant clues to the mystery much more the more times you watch it. What they are wearing, images on walls and seemingly insignificant things the camera picks up on create a tapestry of loose threads that can be woven together into deeper meaning if that is what you want to do.
Without doing that it may seem like a bewildering entity, deliberately odd for the sake of it, and as such it could put anyone off. At 2 hours and 28 minutes it is a bit of a stretch, and the last half hour, once it descends into the complete madness suggested earlier, perhaps doesn’t live up to the promises it makes. Also, despite Pugh being a mesmeric presence from start to finish, the supporting cast can’t quite go with her on the same level. Even the talented Will Poulter seems burdened by a less than three dimensional character, underwritten as are many in a script that focuses so much on Dani that everything else suffers.
My overall impression of it as a film is that it falls short of greatness by a narrow margin, but comes very close at times to genuine genius. It is the promise of Aster as a filmmaker that excites me most, even if this is not the film it could have been with a little more experience, maturity and, perhaps, budget. It is his Bottle Rocket, or Hard Eight, when you suspect he will have a Grand Budapest Hotel, or a There Will Be Blood in him at some point down the line.
In conclusion, I can’t emphasise enough how much I was drawn to every moment of what Florence Pugh was doing. Be wary of the film if a casual viewing experience is what you want, because it may infuriate you, and compel you even to switch it off, if you are not totally ready to meet it where it wants to take you. But, watch it for Pugh and see what a rare talent she is bringing to cinema into the 2020s. A very exciting prospect indeed.
Afro-Haitian Experimental Orchestra by Afro-Haitian Experimental Orchestra
Album Watch
Spearheaded by the legendary Afrobeat/Fela Kuti drummer Tony Allen, the Afro-Haitian Experimental...
world
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Darkest Night (First edition) in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
Once prosperous, your kingdom has fallen victim to a powerful Necromancer who has shrouded the realm in darkness. His minions traverse the land doing his bidding, and his army, as well as his powers, continue to grow. All hope is lost….or is it? Four heroes band together in a final attempt to defeat this evil being. Each brings unique powers and strategies to the table, and success will come in one of two ways – by defeating the Necromancer in direct combat, or by gathering Holy Relics and performing a ritual to undo his powers. But be warned: the Necromancer grows stronger with every passing moment, so be sure your chosen strategy is the right one. Otherwise you too will fall victim to the Necromancer’s might.
Darkest Night is a cooperative game where players take on the role of the heroes attempting to defeat the Necromancer. Each turn has 4 steps – Perform any start-of-turn actions, draw/resolve an Event card, perform one action, and defend against Blights (monsters). Each equipped with a unique set of powers, the heroes must work together to search the land for Holy Relics and destroy Blights before the kingdom is overrun. Once all of the heroes have had their turn, the Necromancer gets his turn, which entails advancing the Darkness track, moving towards the closest detected hero, and creating more Blights. Victory comes in two forms – ritual or combat. If the heroes collectively uncover three Holy Relics, they can use them in a ritual to break the Necromancer’s powers. Or if a hero gets strong enough, they could directly fight the Necromancer. If, at any point, the Monastery is overrun by Blights, the game ends in failure and the kingdom has fallen into darkness.
DISCLAIMER – This review is for the Darkest Night (First Edition) base game. There is a second edition, and several expansions, but I have not had experience with any of those, so my thoughts are solely based on the First Edition base game. -L
I’m just going to be up-front and let you know that I am not a huge fan of this game solo. The main reason is that this game is for four heroes, regardless of actual player count. So playing solo means that I have to control all four heroes. Controlling one hero, I can do. Controlling two heroes takes more focus, but is usually manageable. But controlling four heroes at once? Madness! At least for me it is. There is so much more for a single person to keep track of, and it can be pretty overwhelming. There are so many variables to keep track of, I often end up making mistakes – forgetting to draw Event cards, accidentally using one hero’s ability when it is a different hero’s turn, forgetting to give one hero a turn in a round because I thought they already had one, etc. If I am lucky, I will catch a mistake in-progress, or one turn later, and can rectify it. But to be honest, of all the mistakes I make while playing Darkest Night, I probably won’t catch 25% of them. Which can either make a game super easy, or super brutal. You might tell me, “Focus!” or “Pay better attention!” but believe me, I’m trying! I just feel like four heroes for one person is too much.
Patience is a virtue, but apparently I have none when it comes to this game. And by that, I mean that I feel like it takes an eternity to accomplish anything in this game. On your turn, you only get one single action. And movement is an action. Picture this – I am trying to move my hero to the opposite end of the kingdom (at least 2 spaces away). I am going to have to spend 2 complete rounds (active hero turn, other hero turns, Necromancer turn, x2) just to get there. And then once I finally get there, I have to wait for the 3rd round to even do anything in that location! I just get frustrated at the fact that something as simple as moving a few spaces takes multiple rounds to accomplish. Since everything takes so long to do, you have to be thinking so far into the future with every turn. That makes it difficult for me to strategize, and the game just feels so inefficient, especially in solo play, when you have to control all of the heroes. It can be tricky enough planning a few turns in advance for a single hero, but being in charge of all heroes just makes the job more complicated. And maybe I’m just not patient enough for this game, but I think that if every hero got two actions per turn, the game would be a lot more manageable.
This will come as no surprise to you, but I enjoy this game more in a group rather than solo. This game is cooperative, and I like being able to talk strategy with my fellow gamers, rather than trying to figure everything out for each of the four heroes by myself. Group play also allows me to focus my attention on one single hero instead of multiple, which makes the game feel less overwhelming to me. And perhaps the second edition or expansions address some of the issues I have with the game, but for the time being, Darkest Night is low on my list of solo games.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/solo-chronicles-darkest-night/
Once prosperous, your kingdom has fallen victim to a powerful Necromancer who has shrouded the realm in darkness. His minions traverse the land doing his bidding, and his army, as well as his powers, continue to grow. All hope is lost….or is it? Four heroes band together in a final attempt to defeat this evil being. Each brings unique powers and strategies to the table, and success will come in one of two ways – by defeating the Necromancer in direct combat, or by gathering Holy Relics and performing a ritual to undo his powers. But be warned: the Necromancer grows stronger with every passing moment, so be sure your chosen strategy is the right one. Otherwise you too will fall victim to the Necromancer’s might.
Darkest Night is a cooperative game where players take on the role of the heroes attempting to defeat the Necromancer. Each turn has 4 steps – Perform any start-of-turn actions, draw/resolve an Event card, perform one action, and defend against Blights (monsters). Each equipped with a unique set of powers, the heroes must work together to search the land for Holy Relics and destroy Blights before the kingdom is overrun. Once all of the heroes have had their turn, the Necromancer gets his turn, which entails advancing the Darkness track, moving towards the closest detected hero, and creating more Blights. Victory comes in two forms – ritual or combat. If the heroes collectively uncover three Holy Relics, they can use them in a ritual to break the Necromancer’s powers. Or if a hero gets strong enough, they could directly fight the Necromancer. If, at any point, the Monastery is overrun by Blights, the game ends in failure and the kingdom has fallen into darkness.
DISCLAIMER – This review is for the Darkest Night (First Edition) base game. There is a second edition, and several expansions, but I have not had experience with any of those, so my thoughts are solely based on the First Edition base game. -L
I’m just going to be up-front and let you know that I am not a huge fan of this game solo. The main reason is that this game is for four heroes, regardless of actual player count. So playing solo means that I have to control all four heroes. Controlling one hero, I can do. Controlling two heroes takes more focus, but is usually manageable. But controlling four heroes at once? Madness! At least for me it is. There is so much more for a single person to keep track of, and it can be pretty overwhelming. There are so many variables to keep track of, I often end up making mistakes – forgetting to draw Event cards, accidentally using one hero’s ability when it is a different hero’s turn, forgetting to give one hero a turn in a round because I thought they already had one, etc. If I am lucky, I will catch a mistake in-progress, or one turn later, and can rectify it. But to be honest, of all the mistakes I make while playing Darkest Night, I probably won’t catch 25% of them. Which can either make a game super easy, or super brutal. You might tell me, “Focus!” or “Pay better attention!” but believe me, I’m trying! I just feel like four heroes for one person is too much.
Patience is a virtue, but apparently I have none when it comes to this game. And by that, I mean that I feel like it takes an eternity to accomplish anything in this game. On your turn, you only get one single action. And movement is an action. Picture this – I am trying to move my hero to the opposite end of the kingdom (at least 2 spaces away). I am going to have to spend 2 complete rounds (active hero turn, other hero turns, Necromancer turn, x2) just to get there. And then once I finally get there, I have to wait for the 3rd round to even do anything in that location! I just get frustrated at the fact that something as simple as moving a few spaces takes multiple rounds to accomplish. Since everything takes so long to do, you have to be thinking so far into the future with every turn. That makes it difficult for me to strategize, and the game just feels so inefficient, especially in solo play, when you have to control all of the heroes. It can be tricky enough planning a few turns in advance for a single hero, but being in charge of all heroes just makes the job more complicated. And maybe I’m just not patient enough for this game, but I think that if every hero got two actions per turn, the game would be a lot more manageable.
This will come as no surprise to you, but I enjoy this game more in a group rather than solo. This game is cooperative, and I like being able to talk strategy with my fellow gamers, rather than trying to figure everything out for each of the four heroes by myself. Group play also allows me to focus my attention on one single hero instead of multiple, which makes the game feel less overwhelming to me. And perhaps the second edition or expansions address some of the issues I have with the game, but for the time being, Darkest Night is low on my list of solo games.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/solo-chronicles-darkest-night/
Hadley (567 KP) rated Frankenstein in Books
Apr 30, 2019
Great main character (1 more)
Beautiful writing
Over usage of some words (1 more)
Secondary characters have hardly a back story
In the horror genre, I have very few favorite female writers, but Mary Shelley is one of them. The way she weaves environments with character defining scenes is beautifully done in 'Frankenstein.' At the tender age of 18, Shelley was able to convey grief and loss through a single story. She created a relatable 'creature' that many readers will have pity for, but also an obsessive young man that can hardly be hated. Some people may be intimidated by the more diverse English language from the early 1800's, but, in my opinion, the story would not have had the same impact if it had been written today.
Not just horror readers will enjoy 'Frankenstein,' but also those who like to read philosophy. Shelley brings up life discerning questions that even society meddles with today. It's amazing to think that a two century old book discusses problems we still deal with.
The book begins with a sea captain that picks up a stranger that was stranded on a raft of ice, and this man has a fascinating story to tell. The entire book is a letter written by the sea captain to his sister, which he details every bit of Victor Frankenstein's several year tale. Readers get to follow Frankenstein's life from the moment his 'creature' is made to the end of his days, which traverses the globe. When Shelley begins to lull over her love of environments, she quickly picks up with character or story development that keeps our attention from wandering.
'Frankenstein' focuses on the need to be loved and accepted to live a happy existence,as well as reaching our dreams, but Shelley shows how achieving such things can cause a crushing defeat in the latter pursuit: "Night was far advanced when I came to the halfway resting-place, and seated myself beside the fountain. The stars shone at intervals, as the clouds passed from over them; the dark pines rose before me, and every here and there a broken tree lay on the ground: it was a scene of wonderful solemnity, and stirred strange thoughts within me. I wept bitterly; and clasping my hands in agony, I exclaimed, 'Oh! stars, and clouds, and winds, ye are all about to mock me: if ye really pity me, crush sensation and memory; let me become as nought; but if not, depart, depart, and leave me in darkness.' "
There are other characters we read of, including Frankenstein's best friend, Henry, and his long time love interest, Elizabeth (both of who grew up with Frankenstein). Henry comes from a well-to-do merchant family, while Elizabeth was orphaned from a wealthy family, then adopted by the Frankensteins as a future wife for Victor. Unfortunately, we learn little about them or Victor's family, that when any of them do die, it's not felt personally by the reader. There are other characters that had major events in the story, but as with the friends, they weren't developed enough to bring up any emotion at their passing.
After Frankenstein sets out after his creation,we meet the 'creature' at the top of a mountain. He is devastated that his creator hates him, and that the other humans he has met also hated him. "I expected this reception,' said the demon. 'All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends.' "
The 'creature' gives Frankenstein an ultimatum: he either makes him a female companion or he will kill everyone Frankenstein loves and adores." 'What I ask of you is reasonable and moderate; I demand a creature of another sex, but as hideous as myself; the gratification is small, but it is all that I can receive,and it shall content me.' " Although, by this time, the 'creature' has already murdered Frankenstein's youngest brother, Victor agrees to make him a companion, but with serious regret soon after.
The majority of the story concerns Frankenstein trying fool-hardly to protect all those he loves while the 'creature' murders them one by one. The most surprising of the murders is Henry's. After Frankenstein changes his mind on making another creation, the 'creature' quickly finds Henry and kills him, but Frankenstein is accused of the murder and spends quite some time in prison for it. "But I was doomed to live; and, in two months, found myself as awaking from a dream, in a prison, stretched on a wretched bed, surrounded by gaolers, turnkeys, bolts, and all the miserable apparatus of a dungeon. "
Frankenstein is eventually released from prison when the evidence doesn't add up, and witnesses come forward, claiming to have seen Victor elsewhere at the time of the murder. Frankenstein is, at this time, in a drowning melancholy and madness, but this doesn't stop him from marrying Elizabeth. The 'creature' foretold Frankenstein that he would be with him on his wedding night, and Victor uses this to his advantage - arming himself with pistols and knives on the honeymoon. Yet, to no avail, Frankenstein is unable to outlive or outsmart the 'creature' at any turn.
'Frankenstein' is a must-read for all readers. Although many horror stories today pertain to a creature killing it's master, none of them can reach the grief stricken peaks as Shelley has. Every passage in this book reads like poetry. Every interaction between Frankenstein and his 'creature' is fascinating to the reader. And, before Frankenstein dies, he leaves the sea captain with words of wisdom that even readers could benefit from: "Seek happiness in tranquillity and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries."
Highly recommend!
Not just horror readers will enjoy 'Frankenstein,' but also those who like to read philosophy. Shelley brings up life discerning questions that even society meddles with today. It's amazing to think that a two century old book discusses problems we still deal with.
The book begins with a sea captain that picks up a stranger that was stranded on a raft of ice, and this man has a fascinating story to tell. The entire book is a letter written by the sea captain to his sister, which he details every bit of Victor Frankenstein's several year tale. Readers get to follow Frankenstein's life from the moment his 'creature' is made to the end of his days, which traverses the globe. When Shelley begins to lull over her love of environments, she quickly picks up with character or story development that keeps our attention from wandering.
'Frankenstein' focuses on the need to be loved and accepted to live a happy existence,as well as reaching our dreams, but Shelley shows how achieving such things can cause a crushing defeat in the latter pursuit: "Night was far advanced when I came to the halfway resting-place, and seated myself beside the fountain. The stars shone at intervals, as the clouds passed from over them; the dark pines rose before me, and every here and there a broken tree lay on the ground: it was a scene of wonderful solemnity, and stirred strange thoughts within me. I wept bitterly; and clasping my hands in agony, I exclaimed, 'Oh! stars, and clouds, and winds, ye are all about to mock me: if ye really pity me, crush sensation and memory; let me become as nought; but if not, depart, depart, and leave me in darkness.' "
There are other characters we read of, including Frankenstein's best friend, Henry, and his long time love interest, Elizabeth (both of who grew up with Frankenstein). Henry comes from a well-to-do merchant family, while Elizabeth was orphaned from a wealthy family, then adopted by the Frankensteins as a future wife for Victor. Unfortunately, we learn little about them or Victor's family, that when any of them do die, it's not felt personally by the reader. There are other characters that had major events in the story, but as with the friends, they weren't developed enough to bring up any emotion at their passing.
After Frankenstein sets out after his creation,we meet the 'creature' at the top of a mountain. He is devastated that his creator hates him, and that the other humans he has met also hated him. "I expected this reception,' said the demon. 'All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends.' "
The 'creature' gives Frankenstein an ultimatum: he either makes him a female companion or he will kill everyone Frankenstein loves and adores." 'What I ask of you is reasonable and moderate; I demand a creature of another sex, but as hideous as myself; the gratification is small, but it is all that I can receive,and it shall content me.' " Although, by this time, the 'creature' has already murdered Frankenstein's youngest brother, Victor agrees to make him a companion, but with serious regret soon after.
The majority of the story concerns Frankenstein trying fool-hardly to protect all those he loves while the 'creature' murders them one by one. The most surprising of the murders is Henry's. After Frankenstein changes his mind on making another creation, the 'creature' quickly finds Henry and kills him, but Frankenstein is accused of the murder and spends quite some time in prison for it. "But I was doomed to live; and, in two months, found myself as awaking from a dream, in a prison, stretched on a wretched bed, surrounded by gaolers, turnkeys, bolts, and all the miserable apparatus of a dungeon. "
Frankenstein is eventually released from prison when the evidence doesn't add up, and witnesses come forward, claiming to have seen Victor elsewhere at the time of the murder. Frankenstein is, at this time, in a drowning melancholy and madness, but this doesn't stop him from marrying Elizabeth. The 'creature' foretold Frankenstein that he would be with him on his wedding night, and Victor uses this to his advantage - arming himself with pistols and knives on the honeymoon. Yet, to no avail, Frankenstein is unable to outlive or outsmart the 'creature' at any turn.
'Frankenstein' is a must-read for all readers. Although many horror stories today pertain to a creature killing it's master, none of them can reach the grief stricken peaks as Shelley has. Every passage in this book reads like poetry. Every interaction between Frankenstein and his 'creature' is fascinating to the reader. And, before Frankenstein dies, he leaves the sea captain with words of wisdom that even readers could benefit from: "Seek happiness in tranquillity and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries."
Highly recommend!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Dana (24 KP) rated A Conjuring of Light in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I tried to take my time with this book. I only listened to it for short amounts of time because I knew it was the last one and I wanted to take my time with it. Well, that and I was busy with Christmas stuff, so I guess I had to spend time with family.
So, onto the review. By the way, this is not spoiler free for the series or this book, so read at your own peril.
This book absolutely wrecked me. So we started off not knowing the status of Kell and therefore Rhys because they are freaking bound together via magical tattoos, so yeah, stressful. Then we have to know what is going on with Lila because how is she going to react to the information that Kell is possibly dying? I wasn't so sure. But damn am I glad she wanted to act. Then we have the knowledge that Holland is being taken over by Oseran because why not? Let's just have this piece of sentient magic take over an Antari's body to be able to take over worlds. Yes, plural. How could I not be okay with that? And that is all just from where we left off at the end of the last book, okay? I was a wreck when I started the book.
Alright, so onto Kell. He is so self sacrificing it kills me. Well, it nearly kills him and Rhys too, but that's beside the point. He, first, finds himself without magic, needing Delilah to come and save him. Then he is ostracized again from the court because obviously this is all his fault, right? Wrong. After that, he has to go on a mission with two people he hates as well as the woman he loves and a few strangers to boot. Not too bad so far. In order to save the woman he loves and (hopefully) protect her from harm, he is willing to do whatever, that means dying, to keep her alive and with magic. But he claims it's because he is able to control it better. Yeah, Kell. That's the reason. I can smell bullshit all the way over here, buddy. But really, even though he has a hard time staying alive and keeping out of trouble, I love Kell. He knows what is best for those he loves and will not hesitate to do it. He wants to travel the world, to get to see more than just London on any of the plains. And he gets to in the end. Plus, who doesn't want a person like Kell in their lives?
Now onto my girl Delilah. Hey there Delilah what's it like in Red London, are you trying to get yourself killed just to prove a point to Kell and Rhys? I would like to know why. (Sing that in the tune of the Plain White Tee's song, and you'll be golden.) But really. This girl has almost as much of a death wish as Kell does, swinging head first into danger without a plan most of the time. She is impulsive, rash, and strong as hell. And I wouldn't have her any other way. She hasn't known these people for very long, but she cares for them so deeply. She is also willing to give up everything to go up against Oseran, becasue why not? She thinks her unfiltered and untrained power can do a lot of damage. Which, yes it can, but not necessarily to your opponent, dear. I am proud of this scrappy little nobody. She became the badass pirate queen she has always needed to be. Plus, I like that she used her cunning and her knowledge as a thief to get the item they needed from the floating black market. So cool. Oh! And when she was battling Oseran and she freaking moved the river. Yeah girl! Prove Allucard wrong! Use that freaking ANTARI magic that you have. Get that black glass eye and become your true self!
Rhys is amazing. I honestly thought his father was going to do a spell to give Rhys his power when the King went out to fave Oseran in his palace, but I am glad he didn't. We need to see that even people without powers are powerful in their own right. He is a king, a commander, a force to be reckoned with, not in spite of his lack of magic, but because of it. He was able to train himself in the ways of people. He doesn't need magic to control, he's got words for that. What happened to his family, and almost happened to him, was heart breaking. I hate that he didn't really have time to mourn. I hate that he had to see his mother die in front of him. I hate that he didn't get to get revenge personally. But I know it would have hurt him as a character too much to have to kill those who betrayed the crown.
Allucard is still a hero in my eyes. He put up with so much shit from his family, and then Kell. I mean, the man paid for a magical mirror to be able to show Rhys the truth about why he left. HE JUST DESERVES TO BE HAPPY OKAY!!! I am glad that he and Rhys get to be together forever because they are in love and I love that love. Also, we got to see him use his magic so much more in this book. I feel like he got to earn his title as the winner of the Essen Tash. (I think that's how you spell it, I can't remember, okay). So, yeah, Allucard for life.
I don't know how she did it, but Ms Victoria Schwab made me like Holland. I just invested my hatred for this guy for two freaking books. TWO BOOKS!! And now I like him? What is this madness. But really, I loved that he was able to redeem himself and his actions. He just wanted to save his world and give it magic again. I like that he was able to use the device and save the day, even though he had to lose his power because of it. He is just, if not more so, self sacrificing as Kell and Lila are put together. He tries to die for the cause at least twice in this book. Also, I love that he becomes the King that is promised in White London. He brings back magic by giving up his. Just so beautiful.
All of the side characters were really interesting as well. I would love to see more into them if Ms Schwab has any plans to do so. As you can tell, I don't want to talk too much about Oseran because I don't like him. I will say, though, that Ms Schwab did a fantastic job creating such a vile creature. He brought a lot to the story and, even though I didn't like the character, it was more on a personal level than the writing of the character. I just didn't like the villain. But I loved how she wrote him. (I hope at least some of that makes sense)
This series was phenomenal. Every page was an adventure and I was so happy to be dragged along. Thank you for writing this book. I can't wait to see what's next.
So, onto the review. By the way, this is not spoiler free for the series or this book, so read at your own peril.
This book absolutely wrecked me. So we started off not knowing the status of Kell and therefore Rhys because they are freaking bound together via magical tattoos, so yeah, stressful. Then we have to know what is going on with Lila because how is she going to react to the information that Kell is possibly dying? I wasn't so sure. But damn am I glad she wanted to act. Then we have the knowledge that Holland is being taken over by Oseran because why not? Let's just have this piece of sentient magic take over an Antari's body to be able to take over worlds. Yes, plural. How could I not be okay with that? And that is all just from where we left off at the end of the last book, okay? I was a wreck when I started the book.
Alright, so onto Kell. He is so self sacrificing it kills me. Well, it nearly kills him and Rhys too, but that's beside the point. He, first, finds himself without magic, needing Delilah to come and save him. Then he is ostracized again from the court because obviously this is all his fault, right? Wrong. After that, he has to go on a mission with two people he hates as well as the woman he loves and a few strangers to boot. Not too bad so far. In order to save the woman he loves and (hopefully) protect her from harm, he is willing to do whatever, that means dying, to keep her alive and with magic. But he claims it's because he is able to control it better. Yeah, Kell. That's the reason. I can smell bullshit all the way over here, buddy. But really, even though he has a hard time staying alive and keeping out of trouble, I love Kell. He knows what is best for those he loves and will not hesitate to do it. He wants to travel the world, to get to see more than just London on any of the plains. And he gets to in the end. Plus, who doesn't want a person like Kell in their lives?
Now onto my girl Delilah. Hey there Delilah what's it like in Red London, are you trying to get yourself killed just to prove a point to Kell and Rhys? I would like to know why. (Sing that in the tune of the Plain White Tee's song, and you'll be golden.) But really. This girl has almost as much of a death wish as Kell does, swinging head first into danger without a plan most of the time. She is impulsive, rash, and strong as hell. And I wouldn't have her any other way. She hasn't known these people for very long, but she cares for them so deeply. She is also willing to give up everything to go up against Oseran, becasue why not? She thinks her unfiltered and untrained power can do a lot of damage. Which, yes it can, but not necessarily to your opponent, dear. I am proud of this scrappy little nobody. She became the badass pirate queen she has always needed to be. Plus, I like that she used her cunning and her knowledge as a thief to get the item they needed from the floating black market. So cool. Oh! And when she was battling Oseran and she freaking moved the river. Yeah girl! Prove Allucard wrong! Use that freaking ANTARI magic that you have. Get that black glass eye and become your true self!
Rhys is amazing. I honestly thought his father was going to do a spell to give Rhys his power when the King went out to fave Oseran in his palace, but I am glad he didn't. We need to see that even people without powers are powerful in their own right. He is a king, a commander, a force to be reckoned with, not in spite of his lack of magic, but because of it. He was able to train himself in the ways of people. He doesn't need magic to control, he's got words for that. What happened to his family, and almost happened to him, was heart breaking. I hate that he didn't really have time to mourn. I hate that he had to see his mother die in front of him. I hate that he didn't get to get revenge personally. But I know it would have hurt him as a character too much to have to kill those who betrayed the crown.
Allucard is still a hero in my eyes. He put up with so much shit from his family, and then Kell. I mean, the man paid for a magical mirror to be able to show Rhys the truth about why he left. HE JUST DESERVES TO BE HAPPY OKAY!!! I am glad that he and Rhys get to be together forever because they are in love and I love that love. Also, we got to see him use his magic so much more in this book. I feel like he got to earn his title as the winner of the Essen Tash. (I think that's how you spell it, I can't remember, okay). So, yeah, Allucard for life.
I don't know how she did it, but Ms Victoria Schwab made me like Holland. I just invested my hatred for this guy for two freaking books. TWO BOOKS!! And now I like him? What is this madness. But really, I loved that he was able to redeem himself and his actions. He just wanted to save his world and give it magic again. I like that he was able to use the device and save the day, even though he had to lose his power because of it. He is just, if not more so, self sacrificing as Kell and Lila are put together. He tries to die for the cause at least twice in this book. Also, I love that he becomes the King that is promised in White London. He brings back magic by giving up his. Just so beautiful.
All of the side characters were really interesting as well. I would love to see more into them if Ms Schwab has any plans to do so. As you can tell, I don't want to talk too much about Oseran because I don't like him. I will say, though, that Ms Schwab did a fantastic job creating such a vile creature. He brought a lot to the story and, even though I didn't like the character, it was more on a personal level than the writing of the character. I just didn't like the villain. But I loved how she wrote him. (I hope at least some of that makes sense)
This series was phenomenal. Every page was an adventure and I was so happy to be dragged along. Thank you for writing this book. I can't wait to see what's next.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Dracula was written by author Bram Stoker during the late 1890's and is set around the character of Dracula and his attempt to move from Transylvania to England so he can spread the curse of the undead (I.e. the creation of more vampires). English solicitor Jonathan Harker who'd originally gone to Transylvania to be legal aide for Dracula stops him with the help of Van Helsing and others which ends the life of one of them – Quincey-, the book ends with a note from Jonathan Harker that several people lived happily married and Jonathan has a son nicknamed for Quincey.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.