Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Downfall (Der Untergang) (2004) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
The true story of the last days of NAZI Germany, focusing on Hitler and his cohorts as they sought refuge on his Berlin Bunker and is chronicled here with such honesty.
Told in a straight forward manner, we are given a portrait of not only Adolf Hitler himself, played perfectly by Bruno Ganz, who manages to humanize him without ever apologising for his heinous acts, but also those close to him. Shown through the young eyes of his final secretary, Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara), we are given a picture of what The Third Reich was to those who believed in it as well as what it had become for those who would suffer at it bloody hands.
Directed by Hirschbiegel to put us, the audience in the anterooms with these monsters, we are placed into a complex environment, edgy, atmospheric and most of all, real, as we witness noble acts of patriotism, conscience and pure, despicable horror, none less so that Magda Geobells, with the full consent of her husband, Joseph, first drugging, then murdering their six children as they slept, rather than “let them live in a world without national socialism.”
The only redeeming factors were their eventual suicides and in terms of the film, their first rate performances throughout this harrowing scene. Corinna Harfouch, who portrays Magda manages to portray this evil woman yet convey the emotion which was subdued deep beneath the surface. No small feat to allow such a fleeting glimpse of humanity during such and inhuman act.
But the same must be said Bruno Ganz, who manages to portray Hitler with such humanity; whilst showing us the true nature of his monstrosities, highlighting that the REAL monsters live among us and can seduce us at any time, any where, especially when we are vulnerable.
During one of the film’s early scenes, Hitler and Albert Speer (Heino Ferch), his Armaments Minister, discussing his vision for The Third Reich as he looks over a model of the new Germany which would be built after he won the war, a Germany without department stores, instead focusing on art, literature and culture.
Surely a noble goal, but as we all know, this cultural hub would have been built at an unacceptable cost, mainly with the blood of those who Hitler and his cohorts deemed to be inferior.
This is one of many clever methods used to convey a fair portrait of Hitler and The Third Reich. To demonstrate how bad they were, you first have to show impartiality, pointing out the good in what they do, play devil’s advocate as it were. Because whether we like it or not, evil motives are often built upon decent goals.
But as this film demonstrates, as Hitler shows his destine for anyone, even his own people, who will not give their lives for HIS vision of Germany, his Third Reich was being eaten away by a cancer of his own making, a Germany rotting from the very top.
Downfall is without a doubt one of the best World War 2 films which I have ever seen, delivering a compelling and immersive look behind the scenes of one of the most important defeats in modern history.
But being British and having to follow this with subtitles, which was great as watching this in its native German only adds to the experience, it can be a bit difficult to keep up with every plot machination, as we spend two and half hours reading about troop deployments, tactics and the philosophy of the Third Reich as we are presented with such atmospheric work, but if you can keep up with but the text and visuals, this is one hell of an education for those who do not know and an immersive masterpiece for those who follow WW2 history.
Told in a straight forward manner, we are given a portrait of not only Adolf Hitler himself, played perfectly by Bruno Ganz, who manages to humanize him without ever apologising for his heinous acts, but also those close to him. Shown through the young eyes of his final secretary, Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara), we are given a picture of what The Third Reich was to those who believed in it as well as what it had become for those who would suffer at it bloody hands.
Directed by Hirschbiegel to put us, the audience in the anterooms with these monsters, we are placed into a complex environment, edgy, atmospheric and most of all, real, as we witness noble acts of patriotism, conscience and pure, despicable horror, none less so that Magda Geobells, with the full consent of her husband, Joseph, first drugging, then murdering their six children as they slept, rather than “let them live in a world without national socialism.”
The only redeeming factors were their eventual suicides and in terms of the film, their first rate performances throughout this harrowing scene. Corinna Harfouch, who portrays Magda manages to portray this evil woman yet convey the emotion which was subdued deep beneath the surface. No small feat to allow such a fleeting glimpse of humanity during such and inhuman act.
But the same must be said Bruno Ganz, who manages to portray Hitler with such humanity; whilst showing us the true nature of his monstrosities, highlighting that the REAL monsters live among us and can seduce us at any time, any where, especially when we are vulnerable.
During one of the film’s early scenes, Hitler and Albert Speer (Heino Ferch), his Armaments Minister, discussing his vision for The Third Reich as he looks over a model of the new Germany which would be built after he won the war, a Germany without department stores, instead focusing on art, literature and culture.
Surely a noble goal, but as we all know, this cultural hub would have been built at an unacceptable cost, mainly with the blood of those who Hitler and his cohorts deemed to be inferior.
This is one of many clever methods used to convey a fair portrait of Hitler and The Third Reich. To demonstrate how bad they were, you first have to show impartiality, pointing out the good in what they do, play devil’s advocate as it were. Because whether we like it or not, evil motives are often built upon decent goals.
But as this film demonstrates, as Hitler shows his destine for anyone, even his own people, who will not give their lives for HIS vision of Germany, his Third Reich was being eaten away by a cancer of his own making, a Germany rotting from the very top.
Downfall is without a doubt one of the best World War 2 films which I have ever seen, delivering a compelling and immersive look behind the scenes of one of the most important defeats in modern history.
But being British and having to follow this with subtitles, which was great as watching this in its native German only adds to the experience, it can be a bit difficult to keep up with every plot machination, as we spend two and half hours reading about troop deployments, tactics and the philosophy of the Third Reich as we are presented with such atmospheric work, but if you can keep up with but the text and visuals, this is one hell of an education for those who do not know and an immersive masterpiece for those who follow WW2 history.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mary Poppins (1964) in Movies
Apr 20, 2019
Practically Perfect In Every Way
After watching MARY POPPINS RETURNS, the BankofMarquis was itching to check out the original 1964 Julie Andrews/Dick Van Dyke/Walt Disney production of MARY POPPINS to see if it holds up as well as my memory has held it up. I was a little nervous when I put the DVD in the player and hit go.
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
May 10, 2019
“You said it yourself bitch, we’re the Guardians of the Galaxy”
The Marvel marathon continues. We started with the story of a soldier out of time. Now we move on to the tale of a group of losers having to learn not to kill each other and maybe, just maybe, becoming friends along the way. Guardians of the Galaxy I view as the movie that fully cemented Marvel Studios as the powerhouse we know today. The popularity of Iron Man and Thor spiked after their respective films, but I'm gonna guess if you pulled someone random off the street and asked them who either character was before their movies were released, they could probably at least tell you who they are. Now, not too far separated from the humongous success of The Avengers, here comes Marvel with a film about characters next to no one, not even some avid fans of comics, knew existed. And wouldn't you know, five years after Guardians came out and made Groot a household word, it's still one of their best films Marvel has made.
Guardians of the Galaxy almost off the bat confronts two major complaints I hear about Marvel flicks. First, that they don't look cinematic. Call it the "TV show aesthetic." Moderately flat shots, muted colors, forgettable music, etc. Second, that they're too heavy on witty banter and don't leave enough room for genuinely meaty substance. In regards to the first point, this film looks gorgeous. The color palette and cinematography are both creative and have an absolute blast with the concept of creating a grandiose space opera with equal parts charm and toilet humor. Each planet has its own distinct decor and aliens. Gunn managed to create a fleshed-out, lively, and unique galaxy. In regards to the second point, while there is all sorts of banter to be found throughout, including a Jackson Pollock cum joke, Guardians of the Galaxy has to have the biggest heart out of any film in the MCU. The movie is a full measured ton of fun, but it tugs at the heartstrings in a way few modern blockbusters have been able to achieve.
Four of the five Guardians have something in their life that lead to great tragedy. Peter and Drax lost family very close to them. Gamora and Rocket were tortured and bred to be bloodthirsty warriors. But then, there's Groot. Sweet, unassuming Groot. A beast in battle, but a gentle giant otherwise. His existence seems simple. He eats a leaf off of his shoulder, he drinks water straight from a fountain, and he's more than willing to grow and give a flower to a small girl. He's perhaps the closest we have to a lead character who is wholly happy. The Guardians all start off as renegades, loners, folks reasonably hardened by lives that have enjoyed fucking them over. We get to see them by the end of the film not just grow into heroes, but friends and good people. I am Groot. You are Groot. We are Groot.
Marvel took a big gamble with this movie, but it payed off so absurdly well. The humor is great, the characters even better, and the atmosphere equal parts fun and emotional. Guardians of the Galaxy stands out in the sea of superhero films as a movie that wears its heart on its sleeve. It's weird, but it's damn proud of the fact that it is. Maybe it's alright to be a loser. The world could use a few more losers to help us along the way of life. I think what I'm trying to get down to is this: It was polite of James Gunn to make a movie to go along with his sick mixtape.
Guardians of the Galaxy almost off the bat confronts two major complaints I hear about Marvel flicks. First, that they don't look cinematic. Call it the "TV show aesthetic." Moderately flat shots, muted colors, forgettable music, etc. Second, that they're too heavy on witty banter and don't leave enough room for genuinely meaty substance. In regards to the first point, this film looks gorgeous. The color palette and cinematography are both creative and have an absolute blast with the concept of creating a grandiose space opera with equal parts charm and toilet humor. Each planet has its own distinct decor and aliens. Gunn managed to create a fleshed-out, lively, and unique galaxy. In regards to the second point, while there is all sorts of banter to be found throughout, including a Jackson Pollock cum joke, Guardians of the Galaxy has to have the biggest heart out of any film in the MCU. The movie is a full measured ton of fun, but it tugs at the heartstrings in a way few modern blockbusters have been able to achieve.
Four of the five Guardians have something in their life that lead to great tragedy. Peter and Drax lost family very close to them. Gamora and Rocket were tortured and bred to be bloodthirsty warriors. But then, there's Groot. Sweet, unassuming Groot. A beast in battle, but a gentle giant otherwise. His existence seems simple. He eats a leaf off of his shoulder, he drinks water straight from a fountain, and he's more than willing to grow and give a flower to a small girl. He's perhaps the closest we have to a lead character who is wholly happy. The Guardians all start off as renegades, loners, folks reasonably hardened by lives that have enjoyed fucking them over. We get to see them by the end of the film not just grow into heroes, but friends and good people. I am Groot. You are Groot. We are Groot.
Marvel took a big gamble with this movie, but it payed off so absurdly well. The humor is great, the characters even better, and the atmosphere equal parts fun and emotional. Guardians of the Galaxy stands out in the sea of superhero films as a movie that wears its heart on its sleeve. It's weird, but it's damn proud of the fact that it is. Maybe it's alright to be a loser. The world could use a few more losers to help us along the way of life. I think what I'm trying to get down to is this: It was polite of James Gunn to make a movie to go along with his sick mixtape.
TerraBlizzard (18 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2019
The heritage to the orignal (5 more)
Sublime acting from a majority of unknowns in the industry.
"Spices" up and make it's own mark in the Disney world.
The addition and alterations.
One liners.
Disney parks hidden in the film.
True to the orignal but a stand alone.
A must watch for all ages and with that comes a range of open doors and closed comments.
If you have seen the orignal and loved it you might find it hard to get on with. But please if you do anything before watching this addition to the live action roster Disney are working hard on, go in with no expectations as if you thought this was the original.
If you haven't seen this before then prepare for bright colour, songs that make you tap your feet and a story driven hard by characters that develope through the film.
Guy Ritchie has done a great job with keeping the roots of this film in true disney essence with putting modern twist to make it a more enjoyable watch for adults who grew up with disney. Guy has a way of bringing darkness and edge to a film, like his work on Sherlock Holmes (Another must wacth) and with this edge comes gripping depth to the story. So much so I was desperate for a toilet break but could not leave my seat as I was worried I'd miss a key part.
With the addition of 2 relative unknown leads in a well loved story was a marvellous move on the casting department. Mena Mossuod and Naomi Scott play brilliant parts and fit right into characters with the addittion of Will Smith a strong and dependable actor who you know always does a good job makes the trio stand out.
With the addition of songs and changes of genre to songs. Everything works and works well. "Speechless" a welcomed addition to the set list that empowers girls and boys to stand up and speek out agiasnt those that push them down and genre swap of "Friend like me".
For instance my favourite Disney song is "Friend like me" sung by the genie or genie's if you "wish" the hard hitting jazz number that breaks the bollywood theme. In the orignal and west end the song is similar in both. Robbin Williams and Trevor Dion Nicholas make this song their own keeping to what the disney song writter wanted and to what their good at. HOWEVER this song I don't think could ever work for Will Smith as a jazz number but by god he pulled it off as a R&B. Agiasnt popular oppion Nicholas version Is the one I love follower by both Robbins and Smith versions.
If you have ever been to a disney park you know that they believe in the story's their telling, the work and detail of everything from sets, Background details, outfits and even the god dam smells of the sweets they sell or the rides they have and even the streets you walk on. They work hard and they do it well (their not perfect but they give it a heck of a running start to get close) The same goes for their movies.
This movie wasn't a disappointment or better film for me as I don't compare it to the original.
It is a film that is done well and played well and makes you believe in it. As what all good story telling needs to do to those who watch and listen.
If you have seen the orignal and loved it you might find it hard to get on with. But please if you do anything before watching this addition to the live action roster Disney are working hard on, go in with no expectations as if you thought this was the original.
If you haven't seen this before then prepare for bright colour, songs that make you tap your feet and a story driven hard by characters that develope through the film.
Guy Ritchie has done a great job with keeping the roots of this film in true disney essence with putting modern twist to make it a more enjoyable watch for adults who grew up with disney. Guy has a way of bringing darkness and edge to a film, like his work on Sherlock Holmes (Another must wacth) and with this edge comes gripping depth to the story. So much so I was desperate for a toilet break but could not leave my seat as I was worried I'd miss a key part.
With the addition of 2 relative unknown leads in a well loved story was a marvellous move on the casting department. Mena Mossuod and Naomi Scott play brilliant parts and fit right into characters with the addittion of Will Smith a strong and dependable actor who you know always does a good job makes the trio stand out.
With the addition of songs and changes of genre to songs. Everything works and works well. "Speechless" a welcomed addition to the set list that empowers girls and boys to stand up and speek out agiasnt those that push them down and genre swap of "Friend like me".
For instance my favourite Disney song is "Friend like me" sung by the genie or genie's if you "wish" the hard hitting jazz number that breaks the bollywood theme. In the orignal and west end the song is similar in both. Robbin Williams and Trevor Dion Nicholas make this song their own keeping to what the disney song writter wanted and to what their good at. HOWEVER this song I don't think could ever work for Will Smith as a jazz number but by god he pulled it off as a R&B. Agiasnt popular oppion Nicholas version Is the one I love follower by both Robbins and Smith versions.
If you have ever been to a disney park you know that they believe in the story's their telling, the work and detail of everything from sets, Background details, outfits and even the god dam smells of the sweets they sell or the rides they have and even the streets you walk on. They work hard and they do it well (their not perfect but they give it a heck of a running start to get close) The same goes for their movies.
This movie wasn't a disappointment or better film for me as I don't compare it to the original.
It is a film that is done well and played well and makes you believe in it. As what all good story telling needs to do to those who watch and listen.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Maybe For You in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Maybe For You by Nicole McLaughlin is a very emotional storyline. The theme allows readers to understand how to cope with loss and handle grief. It is also a friends to lover’s story.
Many say that a guy and gal cannot be friends. This story seems to prove that point. The different dynamic relationships play a part in how people react to each other. Friends usually are able to be direct and let their guards down without having to build walls. Usually these relationships are based on honesty where each person can show their true selves. Some of the best intimate relationships start off as friends. The heroine, Alexis, and the hero, Jake began their friendship as pen pals while she was deployed in Italy. They did not literally converse with a writing object, but used the modern way, a phone text. McLaughlin wanted “it to be a safer way to share feelings without being face to face or voice to voice. These two are able to share only when they feel like sharing.”
Alexis is not used to displaying her emotions, keeping everything close to the chest. Her parents died in an auto accident, she was raised by her older brother Dean, and now has lost her fiancé in a military helicopter accident. Anyone who has lost a loved one, especially when it is unexpected, can relate to this powerful quote, “Several times she had to talk herself out of just crawling back into bed… Moving on, healing, required putting one foot in front of the other. Even when it felt impossible.”
The story poignantly shows how those grieving can move on, that time heals. Yet, there are also instances when something can spur someone’s memory about a loved one, and that feeling of being hit in the gut returns. “I wanted to write about this because I experience it. I put in the book how sometimes the weight of the pain feels brand new. I lost my father when I was ten. I watched my mother and how she dealt with losing a partner. I think I put my own feelings in these scenes. My dad has been dead almost twenty-five years and every once in awhile a thought pops up in my head and I cry instantly. I think the grieving process is a long journey.”
But it is also a story of hope. After a year serving overseas Alexis returns to her home town in Kansas. Her brother offers her a job at the Stag Distillery he owns with two friends. But it also ended up becoming one of the most successful wedding and event venues in the Kansas City metro area. To promote their business one of the partners, Jake, travels on the road to find new clients. Realizing that Alex would be a good addition for making sells, it is decided that she will travel with him. Ready for a new challenge, Alexis agrees to accompany her new co-worker, Jake. Soon the casual relationship becomes intense where both realize they have strong feelings for each other.
“I wrote how their relationship was grounded in respect and friendship. Both needed someone that they cared for. They were able to tease and joke with each other, feeling very comfortable, because they started out as friends. They appear as opposites since Alexis is a survivor, strong, broken, vulnerable, determined, desperate for a family, and is very guarded. Jake is a player, a playboy, who always feels second best. As Alexis opens up to him about her feelings he listens, doesn’t pry or lecture about what she should be feeling. Slowly he transitions from a playboy to a partner.”
This is a very emotional story that will tug at the heart. There are many touching scenes with very likeable characters.
Many say that a guy and gal cannot be friends. This story seems to prove that point. The different dynamic relationships play a part in how people react to each other. Friends usually are able to be direct and let their guards down without having to build walls. Usually these relationships are based on honesty where each person can show their true selves. Some of the best intimate relationships start off as friends. The heroine, Alexis, and the hero, Jake began their friendship as pen pals while she was deployed in Italy. They did not literally converse with a writing object, but used the modern way, a phone text. McLaughlin wanted “it to be a safer way to share feelings without being face to face or voice to voice. These two are able to share only when they feel like sharing.”
Alexis is not used to displaying her emotions, keeping everything close to the chest. Her parents died in an auto accident, she was raised by her older brother Dean, and now has lost her fiancé in a military helicopter accident. Anyone who has lost a loved one, especially when it is unexpected, can relate to this powerful quote, “Several times she had to talk herself out of just crawling back into bed… Moving on, healing, required putting one foot in front of the other. Even when it felt impossible.”
The story poignantly shows how those grieving can move on, that time heals. Yet, there are also instances when something can spur someone’s memory about a loved one, and that feeling of being hit in the gut returns. “I wanted to write about this because I experience it. I put in the book how sometimes the weight of the pain feels brand new. I lost my father when I was ten. I watched my mother and how she dealt with losing a partner. I think I put my own feelings in these scenes. My dad has been dead almost twenty-five years and every once in awhile a thought pops up in my head and I cry instantly. I think the grieving process is a long journey.”
But it is also a story of hope. After a year serving overseas Alexis returns to her home town in Kansas. Her brother offers her a job at the Stag Distillery he owns with two friends. But it also ended up becoming one of the most successful wedding and event venues in the Kansas City metro area. To promote their business one of the partners, Jake, travels on the road to find new clients. Realizing that Alex would be a good addition for making sells, it is decided that she will travel with him. Ready for a new challenge, Alexis agrees to accompany her new co-worker, Jake. Soon the casual relationship becomes intense where both realize they have strong feelings for each other.
“I wrote how their relationship was grounded in respect and friendship. Both needed someone that they cared for. They were able to tease and joke with each other, feeling very comfortable, because they started out as friends. They appear as opposites since Alexis is a survivor, strong, broken, vulnerable, determined, desperate for a family, and is very guarded. Jake is a player, a playboy, who always feels second best. As Alexis opens up to him about her feelings he listens, doesn’t pry or lecture about what she should be feeling. Slowly he transitions from a playboy to a partner.”
This is a very emotional story that will tug at the heart. There are many touching scenes with very likeable characters.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Witness in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
A classic ‘game’ from my childhood (seriously, we played it all the time) was Telephone. You know the one – someone whispers something to their neighbor, that person whispers it to their neighbor, and so on until it’s made its way around the group. Hilarity ensues when the final person reveals what they heard – usually a far cry from the original message! So when Travis pulled out Witness, a modern twist on Telephone, I knew that all my years of training would finally amount to something!
Witness is a cooperative game of memory and deduction set in the world of the 1940’s comic “Blake and Mortimer.” You and your compatriots are working together to solve mysteries! But there’s a catch – you each only know certain information, and are limited in how you are allowed to disclose it to each other. If you could just say it outright, there’d be no fun! Each player gets a character book filled with cases and information. Everyone reads their information for the chosen case, and then, like in Telephone, and in a certain order, players whisper their information to the player next to them. Play continues until everyone has heard (through the grapevine, of course) all 4 players’ information. After all information has been relayed, players get a chance to write down any notes from what they remember – but only after everything has been said! Players then open the Questions booklet to their specific case and answer three questions about their specific puzzle. Players receive points for correct answers, and as a team, are attempting to achieve the highest score possible!
I think that Witness is such a neat game. It’s a fun mechanic – you’re trying to remember all of your information to accurately pass it on, only to hear more information to add to what you already need to remember, to then pass it on again! It definitely makes for some funny misheard information! Another aspect of Witness that I like is that it goes beyond a regular game of Telephone in the fact that there’s an end goal – you’re trying to piece together all of the information as you hear it second- or even third-hand to correctly answer some questions. There’s more pressure to communicate accurately because you and your team are striving for a compilation of perfect information to help you score the most endgame points. Witness ups the stakes more than your average game of Telephone, and that’s what makes it interesting and engaging for me.
The major downside of Witness is that it is a game for EXACTLY 4 players. You can’t play with 3. You can’t play with 5. It absolutely 100% must be played with 4 players. And sometimes that’s just not possible. We all know those game nights where maybe only 2 or 3 people are available. Or maybe those times when you invite a large number of people over and they all come. In either scenario, Witness is out, and that is a bummer because it is such a neat game. Since the information is divided between 4 books, there’s unfortunately no way to adapt it for other player counts. So you can either play Witness or you can’t – there’s no ‘maybe.’
Overall, I enjoy playing Witness. I think it’s a unique approach to a simple game. Unfortunately, I believe this game is out of print, but if you can get your hands on a copy, or you see it on a friend’s shelf, give it a play! Whispering to your neighbor and solving little logic puzzles never seemed so fun! Purple Phoenix Games gives Witness a mysterious 11 / 18.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/04/02/witness-review/
Witness is a cooperative game of memory and deduction set in the world of the 1940’s comic “Blake and Mortimer.” You and your compatriots are working together to solve mysteries! But there’s a catch – you each only know certain information, and are limited in how you are allowed to disclose it to each other. If you could just say it outright, there’d be no fun! Each player gets a character book filled with cases and information. Everyone reads their information for the chosen case, and then, like in Telephone, and in a certain order, players whisper their information to the player next to them. Play continues until everyone has heard (through the grapevine, of course) all 4 players’ information. After all information has been relayed, players get a chance to write down any notes from what they remember – but only after everything has been said! Players then open the Questions booklet to their specific case and answer three questions about their specific puzzle. Players receive points for correct answers, and as a team, are attempting to achieve the highest score possible!
I think that Witness is such a neat game. It’s a fun mechanic – you’re trying to remember all of your information to accurately pass it on, only to hear more information to add to what you already need to remember, to then pass it on again! It definitely makes for some funny misheard information! Another aspect of Witness that I like is that it goes beyond a regular game of Telephone in the fact that there’s an end goal – you’re trying to piece together all of the information as you hear it second- or even third-hand to correctly answer some questions. There’s more pressure to communicate accurately because you and your team are striving for a compilation of perfect information to help you score the most endgame points. Witness ups the stakes more than your average game of Telephone, and that’s what makes it interesting and engaging for me.
The major downside of Witness is that it is a game for EXACTLY 4 players. You can’t play with 3. You can’t play with 5. It absolutely 100% must be played with 4 players. And sometimes that’s just not possible. We all know those game nights where maybe only 2 or 3 people are available. Or maybe those times when you invite a large number of people over and they all come. In either scenario, Witness is out, and that is a bummer because it is such a neat game. Since the information is divided between 4 books, there’s unfortunately no way to adapt it for other player counts. So you can either play Witness or you can’t – there’s no ‘maybe.’
Overall, I enjoy playing Witness. I think it’s a unique approach to a simple game. Unfortunately, I believe this game is out of print, but if you can get your hands on a copy, or you see it on a friend’s shelf, give it a play! Whispering to your neighbor and solving little logic puzzles never seemed so fun! Purple Phoenix Games gives Witness a mysterious 11 / 18.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/04/02/witness-review/
Kyera (8 KP) rated The Young Elites in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Despite the fact that I found the main character disagreeable - the premise was enjoyable. Initially, Adelina is very dark and unrelatable. She relishes pain and fear, as a result, I don't have sympathy for her character. Even though her father treated her abysmally her entire life, that treatment only seemed to nurture the darkness inside her. It did not create it. The darkness is all her own.
The only time I truly felt her humanity was when she was with the kind Gemma. It is in those moments she allows herself to feel. even concern for her sister seems forced, like familial obligation rather than a love. Her concern is usually accompanied with ill thoughts and blackened memories towards her sister.
Raffaele and Gemma are the most human of the characters and more likeable than the rest. Dante's main role is to antagonize. Enzo's role is to function as a romantic interest and future savior of the realm. The Windwalker, Lucent, and the Architect, Michel, serve more as background pieces than fully developed characters. Obviously, this is an over=simplification of their roles but it helps to illustrate the weaknesses in character development in the book. Over the course of the novel, the reader is given small glimpses into the character or their backstory but it is insufficient as these are her main and supporting characters for which the book is titled. The Young Elites.
The world the author builds draws you in with its unique holidays, three moons, elegant dress and giant rays that swim through the sky. The elaborate and opulent headquarters (Fortunata Court) of the Dagger Society rise in your mind surrounded by towers, merchants and Inquisitors. Stylistically, the world is reminiscent of Renaissance Italy with its gondolas, dress and canals that might draw you in like the world of Assassin's Creed.
During the course of the novel, we watch as Adelina trains her abilities and before long she joins the Daggers on a mission. She also seems to adopt more humanity as the book progresses which makes her a slightly more appealing character - but she is unable to hold onto that ray of light for long before succumbing to the festering darkness within. (Leaving the reader just as unsympathetic as before.)
She would be more likeable if she didn't welcome that darkness and unless her character arc leads her to light and love, changing her affinities, I have no emotional stake in her well-being. I understand that the author wants to write a dark character, but I personally just don't have an emotional stake in the outcome of this book because I don't particularly identify with any of her characters. Without redeeming qualities, you cannot justify or form an attachment to the character (especially because she is the main character). I'm sure others would like her character, and she is certainly an interesting character, but I prefer a lead who is flawed but inherently good. Perhaps an anti-hero but not the villain.
Growing up unloved, she quickly falls in with the Daggers but questions their motivation and is willing to betray them with the slightest provocation. In her mind, no one could possibly just be kind. They must have an agenda or be using her in some fashion. She is easily manipulated and swayed. Whether she follows through with her vengeance, betrays or redeems is something you must discover by reading the book yourself. Will Adelina redeems herself or succumb to the darkness?
I'm intrigued by the premise and the characters, despite the critical parts of my review. As such, I look forward to seeing where this series goes. I would definitely recommend it to YA fans who enjoy rich worlds that aren't modern or people with special abilities.
The only time I truly felt her humanity was when she was with the kind Gemma. It is in those moments she allows herself to feel. even concern for her sister seems forced, like familial obligation rather than a love. Her concern is usually accompanied with ill thoughts and blackened memories towards her sister.
Raffaele and Gemma are the most human of the characters and more likeable than the rest. Dante's main role is to antagonize. Enzo's role is to function as a romantic interest and future savior of the realm. The Windwalker, Lucent, and the Architect, Michel, serve more as background pieces than fully developed characters. Obviously, this is an over=simplification of their roles but it helps to illustrate the weaknesses in character development in the book. Over the course of the novel, the reader is given small glimpses into the character or their backstory but it is insufficient as these are her main and supporting characters for which the book is titled. The Young Elites.
The world the author builds draws you in with its unique holidays, three moons, elegant dress and giant rays that swim through the sky. The elaborate and opulent headquarters (Fortunata Court) of the Dagger Society rise in your mind surrounded by towers, merchants and Inquisitors. Stylistically, the world is reminiscent of Renaissance Italy with its gondolas, dress and canals that might draw you in like the world of Assassin's Creed.
During the course of the novel, we watch as Adelina trains her abilities and before long she joins the Daggers on a mission. She also seems to adopt more humanity as the book progresses which makes her a slightly more appealing character - but she is unable to hold onto that ray of light for long before succumbing to the festering darkness within. (Leaving the reader just as unsympathetic as before.)
She would be more likeable if she didn't welcome that darkness and unless her character arc leads her to light and love, changing her affinities, I have no emotional stake in her well-being. I understand that the author wants to write a dark character, but I personally just don't have an emotional stake in the outcome of this book because I don't particularly identify with any of her characters. Without redeeming qualities, you cannot justify or form an attachment to the character (especially because she is the main character). I'm sure others would like her character, and she is certainly an interesting character, but I prefer a lead who is flawed but inherently good. Perhaps an anti-hero but not the villain.
Growing up unloved, she quickly falls in with the Daggers but questions their motivation and is willing to betray them with the slightest provocation. In her mind, no one could possibly just be kind. They must have an agenda or be using her in some fashion. She is easily manipulated and swayed. Whether she follows through with her vengeance, betrays or redeems is something you must discover by reading the book yourself. Will Adelina redeems herself or succumb to the darkness?
I'm intrigued by the premise and the characters, despite the critical parts of my review. As such, I look forward to seeing where this series goes. I would definitely recommend it to YA fans who enjoy rich worlds that aren't modern or people with special abilities.
Kyera (8 KP) rated Princess of Thorns in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Princess of Thorns is a not-so-classic retelling of the Sleeping Beauty story. The main character is actually the daughter of the cursed princess, who awoke from a kiss. Her name is Aurora, like the Disney movie's princess and her mother's name is Rose. In the french version of the tale, Sleeping Beauty's daughter is named Aurore. I believe that her mother's is the shortened form of Briar Rose, like German version of her tale by the Brother's Grimm. If you are familiar with the Grimm and Perrault versions of the tale, not only the Disney one, then you will notice many similarities. In a few versions of the tale, there is an evil step-mother or mother-in-law who attempts to eat the leading lady's children.
The author makes use of these characters and plots in her novel. She chooses to include the ill-fated mother, brother and sister, as well as the villainous step-mother. Although that familial tie is not explicitly stated, the King was the children's father and he married the ogre. Thus, she would be their step-mother. And you thought you had a dysfunctional family?
In true fairytale fashion, there are ogres, witches, fairies, and ruffians. Not all are portrayed as you would expect. The ogres have evolved, or perhaps devolved depending upon who you ask. In the early years, the ogres were monstrous creatures that devoured souls whole. They did not control themselves, but feasted on the entire soul leaving nothing behind. As time went on, they were forced to change and limit how much they took. After a time, the ogres began to become smaller and take on much more human-like appearances. Their food source never changed and they prided themselves upon each soul they took, marking their bare skulls.
The Fae seem human, although they possess extra-human traits and magic. One may not think of fairies and immediately imagine a human-like creature with great dexterity, skill in battle, and a lack of guilt -but the Fair Folk are shown this way in the novel. A fairy can bestow a gift upon a human child, like beauty, courage, eloquence, obedience, or strength. But each blessing comes with a curse, as the magic always finds a way to turn the gift into a burden. There are untold consequences to the blessings that cannot be avoided. As such, the fairies stopped giving their gifts to human children.
As with most fairytales, there is an element of romance. The love story blossoms under unusual circumstances and not without its share of problems. The two characters get to know each other throughout the journey, but their are many secrets left untold. As they are discovered, the relationship is altered for good or bad. And in the end, a choice must be made.
Most importantly, the novel isn't entirely predictable (although the budding romance was expected). Generally, you expect good to triumph over evil in most modern retellings of the story - unlike their Grimm counterparts. The plot's climax was frankly a little anti-climactic, but enjoyable non-the-less.
I think the author showed an average amount of character development, although I usually think more would be incredibly beneficial. Certain aspects of the world were explained, but not vividly enough. The "show-don't-tell" method could have been employed here to create a richer, more immersive world. Overall, I was pleased with the author's lexicon, grammar, and spelling - which happens much less often than should reasonably be expected.
I would certainly read another novel by this author as I love stories based upon fairytales. If you read Alex Flinn, I would highly recommend this novel to you just keep in mind it is slightly darker. Readers of fantasy, romance, and the like will enjoy this book and should give it a chance. It seems to target the female demographic, but males should enjoy it as well.
The author makes use of these characters and plots in her novel. She chooses to include the ill-fated mother, brother and sister, as well as the villainous step-mother. Although that familial tie is not explicitly stated, the King was the children's father and he married the ogre. Thus, she would be their step-mother. And you thought you had a dysfunctional family?
In true fairytale fashion, there are ogres, witches, fairies, and ruffians. Not all are portrayed as you would expect. The ogres have evolved, or perhaps devolved depending upon who you ask. In the early years, the ogres were monstrous creatures that devoured souls whole. They did not control themselves, but feasted on the entire soul leaving nothing behind. As time went on, they were forced to change and limit how much they took. After a time, the ogres began to become smaller and take on much more human-like appearances. Their food source never changed and they prided themselves upon each soul they took, marking their bare skulls.
The Fae seem human, although they possess extra-human traits and magic. One may not think of fairies and immediately imagine a human-like creature with great dexterity, skill in battle, and a lack of guilt -but the Fair Folk are shown this way in the novel. A fairy can bestow a gift upon a human child, like beauty, courage, eloquence, obedience, or strength. But each blessing comes with a curse, as the magic always finds a way to turn the gift into a burden. There are untold consequences to the blessings that cannot be avoided. As such, the fairies stopped giving their gifts to human children.
As with most fairytales, there is an element of romance. The love story blossoms under unusual circumstances and not without its share of problems. The two characters get to know each other throughout the journey, but their are many secrets left untold. As they are discovered, the relationship is altered for good or bad. And in the end, a choice must be made.
Most importantly, the novel isn't entirely predictable (although the budding romance was expected). Generally, you expect good to triumph over evil in most modern retellings of the story - unlike their Grimm counterparts. The plot's climax was frankly a little anti-climactic, but enjoyable non-the-less.
I think the author showed an average amount of character development, although I usually think more would be incredibly beneficial. Certain aspects of the world were explained, but not vividly enough. The "show-don't-tell" method could have been employed here to create a richer, more immersive world. Overall, I was pleased with the author's lexicon, grammar, and spelling - which happens much less often than should reasonably be expected.
I would certainly read another novel by this author as I love stories based upon fairytales. If you read Alex Flinn, I would highly recommend this novel to you just keep in mind it is slightly darker. Readers of fantasy, romance, and the like will enjoy this book and should give it a chance. It seems to target the female demographic, but males should enjoy it as well.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Arrangement in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Lucy and Owen fled Brooklyn for the suburbs not long after their son, Wyatt, came along. In the perfect little town of Beekman, they have a beautiful old house, a yard full of chickens, and interact with a cast full of eclectic characters. Lucy also has her hands full with Wyatt, a challenging kid with autism. One evening, when some friends come over and the drinks flow freely, they mention their open marriage. At first, Lucy and Own are a bit shocked. But as the exhausted duo look around at their life, they begin to consider "the arrangement." Owen grabs a pad and a pen and they eke out some rules. It still seems like a joke, until Lucy says she wants to give the arrangement--a six-month experience where they each have an ongoing, no questions asked free pass in their marriage--a go. Surely nothing will go wrong, right?
This novel is a different, oddly intriguing read, offering an extremely realistic portrayal of marriage and raising children. Warm and fuzzy it is not, yet it's still engaging and features relatable characters. Lucy and Owen's exhaustion is palatable, as is Lucy's frustration and love for Wyatt, who is an intelligent, fun, and extremely challenging special needs kid. (You will grow to love him, even as you completely empathize with why poor Lucy might need a break--one of the definite strengths of the book.) For a good early portion of the novel, I found myself thinking I would be reading a quite grim look at parenthood and marriage. And it is, in many ways. After all, why are Lucy and Owen so willing to embark on the arrangement, you wonder? Are they bored with their life, with each other? Are they simply tired parents? What causes them to choose this? As the arrangement begins, their reactions to its ongoing presence in their lives is surprising, and Dunn does a good job at capturing some nuance in their character that you might not expect. These are real married people, with real issues.
Still, there are definitely some odd bits and pieces stuck into the story. It seems disjointed at times, and some of the characters and their stories seem to pop up at weird times, forcing you to remind yourself how they fit into Lucy and Owen's life and the town of Beekman (for we don't hear just from our main couple, but several others who live in town). The novel meanders at times, and I wouldn't call the ending closure, per se, though it falls in line with the realism of the novel.
Where Dunn shines is her humor, which slips through even some of the darker moments. Moments with Wyatt are perfectly captured. Lucy's friend, Sunny Bang, is one of the best things about this book, and you'll love every second featuring her. There's a scene at the town church with many of the local kids (and their pets) that is solely worth purchasing the entire book. Seriously, Dunn writes with a sharp wit, and it's one of the main reasons my rating upped to 3.5 stars. The book is often smartly funny and feminist, even if it has its depressing, wandering moments. It's a fascinating look at marriage, for sure, and I was certainly intrigued to see how the arrangement would play out. It was also a welcome break from all the thrillers I'd been reading lately, so thanks! If you like sharp and witty characters coupled with a psychological inside look at modern-day marriage, you'll find this one quite compelling. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you) in return for an unbiased review. It is available everywhere as of 03/21/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This novel is a different, oddly intriguing read, offering an extremely realistic portrayal of marriage and raising children. Warm and fuzzy it is not, yet it's still engaging and features relatable characters. Lucy and Owen's exhaustion is palatable, as is Lucy's frustration and love for Wyatt, who is an intelligent, fun, and extremely challenging special needs kid. (You will grow to love him, even as you completely empathize with why poor Lucy might need a break--one of the definite strengths of the book.) For a good early portion of the novel, I found myself thinking I would be reading a quite grim look at parenthood and marriage. And it is, in many ways. After all, why are Lucy and Owen so willing to embark on the arrangement, you wonder? Are they bored with their life, with each other? Are they simply tired parents? What causes them to choose this? As the arrangement begins, their reactions to its ongoing presence in their lives is surprising, and Dunn does a good job at capturing some nuance in their character that you might not expect. These are real married people, with real issues.
Still, there are definitely some odd bits and pieces stuck into the story. It seems disjointed at times, and some of the characters and their stories seem to pop up at weird times, forcing you to remind yourself how they fit into Lucy and Owen's life and the town of Beekman (for we don't hear just from our main couple, but several others who live in town). The novel meanders at times, and I wouldn't call the ending closure, per se, though it falls in line with the realism of the novel.
Where Dunn shines is her humor, which slips through even some of the darker moments. Moments with Wyatt are perfectly captured. Lucy's friend, Sunny Bang, is one of the best things about this book, and you'll love every second featuring her. There's a scene at the town church with many of the local kids (and their pets) that is solely worth purchasing the entire book. Seriously, Dunn writes with a sharp wit, and it's one of the main reasons my rating upped to 3.5 stars. The book is often smartly funny and feminist, even if it has its depressing, wandering moments. It's a fascinating look at marriage, for sure, and I was certainly intrigued to see how the arrangement would play out. It was also a welcome break from all the thrillers I'd been reading lately, so thanks! If you like sharp and witty characters coupled with a psychological inside look at modern-day marriage, you'll find this one quite compelling. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you) in return for an unbiased review. It is available everywhere as of 03/21/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Zodiac in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also find my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/june-29th-2016
Firstly I'd like to thank Netgalley and Penguin UK - Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this book in an exchange for a review.
<b><i>"How much worse would the world be if everyone was colour-coded? If people thought they could tell someone's essence at a glance, and discrimination became purely thoughtless? … Maybe people wouldn't spend so much time making sure they acted, sounded and thought the same as their neighbours, if they weren't terrified of being mistaken for the wrong sign. Maybe they'd realise how arbitrary it truly was."</b></i>
This was such a tricky debut novel. The premise was incredibly unique and intriguing that it almost became difficult for the author to live up to the expectations of the plot. Not to say that all debut crime novels are crap but this was such a complex story that I think only really experienced writers like Stephen King or even Gillian Flynn could have shaped it into what it was supposed to be.
I was initially attracted to this book because of the front cover and because the idea of a society where you are segregated by your star sign is a really interesting and unique twist on a look at modern society. Plus I love a crime thriller and had read some good things about this already.
To my disappointment, I felt this started off really slow. I almost couldn’t get into it, but I decided to push myself to continue reading. Only at around 30 - 40% did I finally start to enjoy this. I think a big problem for me was the writing. I often found it a bit clunky and overly descriptive, plus a few spelling and grammar mistakes threw me off. <b>(I hope there's a lot of proofreading before this gets published!)</b>
Though the plot got better, more fast paced and more exciting I still found it difficult to like any of the characters. Burton was a little pretentious and overly insecure. Lindi was as useful as a medium. Mendez was a little bitch. Daniel was mopey and selfish. Cray was your typical dislikable teen gangster. Bram was needy and childish. Maria was supposed to be a kind character but all she did was resent her job and her life. Maybe I’m being a little harsh but I found it difficult to like or relate to any of them.
I felt there was a lot left unsaid when it came to the characters too. Like what happened between Burton and his wife? They were completely fine and loved up one minute and then the next he was saying <i>“he knew she was separating from his life”</i>, but why? Also after the whole Bram <i>thing</i>, he said <i>”Justice was coming for them all”</i> but again, when did that happen in the novel?
Unfortunately I predicted the twist before the 50% mark, I don’t think it was that hard to guess, so that took away some of the excitement of finding out what was going on and getting our killers motive. By the time we find out who our killer is and the Aries people are rising up it all got too confusing for me. There was too much going on in each scene that my mind couldn't focus on any of it!
I’ve given this 3 stars because there was a good story line there and at times some quite nice writing but it was a mediocre book in my mind, not particularly memorable.
On another note, the Ram Squad reminded me of the all the different gangs in Saints Row and the entire Ariesville had a very Gotham vibe to it.
Firstly I'd like to thank Netgalley and Penguin UK - Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this book in an exchange for a review.
<b><i>"How much worse would the world be if everyone was colour-coded? If people thought they could tell someone's essence at a glance, and discrimination became purely thoughtless? … Maybe people wouldn't spend so much time making sure they acted, sounded and thought the same as their neighbours, if they weren't terrified of being mistaken for the wrong sign. Maybe they'd realise how arbitrary it truly was."</b></i>
This was such a tricky debut novel. The premise was incredibly unique and intriguing that it almost became difficult for the author to live up to the expectations of the plot. Not to say that all debut crime novels are crap but this was such a complex story that I think only really experienced writers like Stephen King or even Gillian Flynn could have shaped it into what it was supposed to be.
I was initially attracted to this book because of the front cover and because the idea of a society where you are segregated by your star sign is a really interesting and unique twist on a look at modern society. Plus I love a crime thriller and had read some good things about this already.
To my disappointment, I felt this started off really slow. I almost couldn’t get into it, but I decided to push myself to continue reading. Only at around 30 - 40% did I finally start to enjoy this. I think a big problem for me was the writing. I often found it a bit clunky and overly descriptive, plus a few spelling and grammar mistakes threw me off. <b>(I hope there's a lot of proofreading before this gets published!)</b>
Though the plot got better, more fast paced and more exciting I still found it difficult to like any of the characters. Burton was a little pretentious and overly insecure. Lindi was as useful as a medium. Mendez was a little bitch. Daniel was mopey and selfish. Cray was your typical dislikable teen gangster. Bram was needy and childish. Maria was supposed to be a kind character but all she did was resent her job and her life. Maybe I’m being a little harsh but I found it difficult to like or relate to any of them.
I felt there was a lot left unsaid when it came to the characters too. Like what happened between Burton and his wife? They were completely fine and loved up one minute and then the next he was saying <i>“he knew she was separating from his life”</i>, but why? Also after the whole Bram <i>thing</i>, he said <i>”Justice was coming for them all”</i> but again, when did that happen in the novel?
Unfortunately I predicted the twist before the 50% mark, I don’t think it was that hard to guess, so that took away some of the excitement of finding out what was going on and getting our killers motive. By the time we find out who our killer is and the Aries people are rising up it all got too confusing for me. There was too much going on in each scene that my mind couldn't focus on any of it!
I’ve given this 3 stars because there was a good story line there and at times some quite nice writing but it was a mediocre book in my mind, not particularly memorable.
On another note, the Ram Squad reminded me of the all the different gangs in Saints Row and the entire Ariesville had a very Gotham vibe to it.