Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Ready or Not (2019) in Movies
Sep 3, 2019
Verdict: Blood Soaked Wedding
Story: Ready or Not starts on what should be Grace’s (Weaving) greatest day, her wedding day to Alex (O’Brien) which will put her into the famous gaming family Le Domas. With the wedding at Alex’s family home, she is welcomed by the likes of his brother Daniel (Brody), his father Tony (Czerny) and his mother Becky (MacDowell).
The family has an unusual tradition of playing a randomly selected game, which can be a simple game like chess, but tonight Grace selects Hide and Seek, a game which means the whole family will hunt her down before dawn, being a race for her to survive.
Thoughts on Ready or Not
Characters – Grace is a woman that was raised through the foster system, now she has met the love of her life in Alex and is hoping to be part of a family for the first time in her life. Like most people she is nervous on her wedding day, eager to impress her new family too, but nothing will prepare her for the night, where she must learn to fight to survive when her new family is hunting to capture her. Alex is the man that is going to marry Grace, he has become distant from his family, but knows the traditions that must be followed, he doesn’t give everything away to Grace, knowing it will scary her away, though he doesn’t want to get involved in everything once the game starts. Daniel is Alex’s brother, he hates being part of the family, he wants nothing to do with the game, but reluctantly agrees to play along with little to no enthusiasm, being one of the few people that will help Grace. Tony is the father of the household, he has made the family bigger that ever and wants to continue the traditions that were bought upon the family, he will do anything to make sure the tradition is upheld. We do meet other members of the family including Becky the wife of Tony, mother of the boys, her daughter Emilie alone with the spouses Fitch who will get the most laughs in the film and Charity.
Performances – Samara Weaving kills it in the leading role, first she puts up a fight, secondly, she gives us natural looking reactions to everything that is going on. Adam Brody gives us a strong performance that makes us want to be like his character in this situation. Mark O’Brien is strong, but doesn’t reach the levels of the fellow stars of the film. Henry Czerny is fun through this film, he starts welcoming, turns psychotic and soon becomes a loose cannon as things get out of control, Henry makes us want to see more from his character through this film.
Story – The story here follows a woman that is getting married, only to learn that her wedding night is going to have a twist, she must play a game with the family, with this being a extreme, hide and seek, in a battle for life. This is a story that takes the most important day in anybody’s life and turns it into a nightmare, which will see Grace needing to fight to survive against a family that will do anything to hunt her down to continue having their fame and fortune. It does show how the rich will do anything to get away with something big in their lives, even murder, while it does show us just how games can be turned into something bigger than just a board game.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film does come from the gore that we do see, both towards Grace and to other innocent victims in the game, one scene involving a hand is extremely difficult to watch. The mystery in the film does look at how the family is acting, like what will happen if they don’t win.
Settings – The film is set in one location, the giant mansion of the Le Domas, this shows how many different potential hiding spots we could see and how much she is playing on away ground.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are brutal to see, it is mostly all the injuries being inflicted through the film, as mentioned before the hand sequence is one that will make most wince.
Scene of the Movie – How to use a crossbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do get a lot of time jumps here, considering this is taking place over about seven hours.
Final Thoughts – This is an entertaining humour filled horror that will keep you on the edge of your seat seeing if Grace will make it out alive and just what will happen next.
Overall: Fun survival horror.
Story: Ready or Not starts on what should be Grace’s (Weaving) greatest day, her wedding day to Alex (O’Brien) which will put her into the famous gaming family Le Domas. With the wedding at Alex’s family home, she is welcomed by the likes of his brother Daniel (Brody), his father Tony (Czerny) and his mother Becky (MacDowell).
The family has an unusual tradition of playing a randomly selected game, which can be a simple game like chess, but tonight Grace selects Hide and Seek, a game which means the whole family will hunt her down before dawn, being a race for her to survive.
Thoughts on Ready or Not
Characters – Grace is a woman that was raised through the foster system, now she has met the love of her life in Alex and is hoping to be part of a family for the first time in her life. Like most people she is nervous on her wedding day, eager to impress her new family too, but nothing will prepare her for the night, where she must learn to fight to survive when her new family is hunting to capture her. Alex is the man that is going to marry Grace, he has become distant from his family, but knows the traditions that must be followed, he doesn’t give everything away to Grace, knowing it will scary her away, though he doesn’t want to get involved in everything once the game starts. Daniel is Alex’s brother, he hates being part of the family, he wants nothing to do with the game, but reluctantly agrees to play along with little to no enthusiasm, being one of the few people that will help Grace. Tony is the father of the household, he has made the family bigger that ever and wants to continue the traditions that were bought upon the family, he will do anything to make sure the tradition is upheld. We do meet other members of the family including Becky the wife of Tony, mother of the boys, her daughter Emilie alone with the spouses Fitch who will get the most laughs in the film and Charity.
Performances – Samara Weaving kills it in the leading role, first she puts up a fight, secondly, she gives us natural looking reactions to everything that is going on. Adam Brody gives us a strong performance that makes us want to be like his character in this situation. Mark O’Brien is strong, but doesn’t reach the levels of the fellow stars of the film. Henry Czerny is fun through this film, he starts welcoming, turns psychotic and soon becomes a loose cannon as things get out of control, Henry makes us want to see more from his character through this film.
Story – The story here follows a woman that is getting married, only to learn that her wedding night is going to have a twist, she must play a game with the family, with this being a extreme, hide and seek, in a battle for life. This is a story that takes the most important day in anybody’s life and turns it into a nightmare, which will see Grace needing to fight to survive against a family that will do anything to hunt her down to continue having their fame and fortune. It does show how the rich will do anything to get away with something big in their lives, even murder, while it does show us just how games can be turned into something bigger than just a board game.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film does come from the gore that we do see, both towards Grace and to other innocent victims in the game, one scene involving a hand is extremely difficult to watch. The mystery in the film does look at how the family is acting, like what will happen if they don’t win.
Settings – The film is set in one location, the giant mansion of the Le Domas, this shows how many different potential hiding spots we could see and how much she is playing on away ground.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are brutal to see, it is mostly all the injuries being inflicted through the film, as mentioned before the hand sequence is one that will make most wince.
Scene of the Movie – How to use a crossbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do get a lot of time jumps here, considering this is taking place over about seven hours.
Final Thoughts – This is an entertaining humour filled horror that will keep you on the edge of your seat seeing if Grace will make it out alive and just what will happen next.
Overall: Fun survival horror.
Those Conspiracy Guys
Podcast
Those Conspiracy Guys is a weekly podcast where we discuss all types and genres of conspiracy...
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
80 minutes of magic!
Two men, the charismatic and charming Phillip, and the cowardly and sheepish Brandon have just strangled their mutual friend, David, and are holding him in their arms. To dispose of the body, they decide on the bold move a placing it in a large trunk in the middle of the living room of their high rise apartment building. They don't have much time to discuss their situation before guests start arriving for their dinner party which had been planned beforehand.
After the guests arrive, the usual small talk and chit chat commences with those attending including David fiance and a former college professor of the men. After the idle conversation starts to bore, it is mentioned how interesting it would be to murder someone and the consequences of doing so. It's no dig deal to dispose of people you don't like is it? Some party-goers are not keen on this conversation and lead it in a new direction eventually focusing on the missing David who has not yet arrived.
Eventually, the unresolved issue of David's absence is brushed aside for the moment and the guests leave to go about their lives. The college professor returns after having been given verbal clues in the former conversations about the nefarious activity of Phillip and David as well as some physical ones. He confronts the duo and David is unable to hold back.
The mystery has been revealed and the men have to deal with the fallout and consequences.
The physical limitation of the amount of film cameras of the day were able to hold was the only drawback for the way Hitchcock managed to shoot this film. There are only 10 total shots within the film ranging from 4 to 10 minutes. The cuts were achieved through normal editing, but also the actors and camera intersecting for brief moments where a momentary black frame would occur continuing the action right after this moment.
I can't even imagine the amount of rehearsal and takes would have been necessary for both the actors and production crew to orchestrate visual and vocal cues and not making mistakes for such a long time for each shot to be completed successfully. The film feels much like a stage production having all the scenes occur mainly in the living room and foyer areas, but that had to be by design.
With no elaborate staging, the audience is left to enjoy the masterful screenplay nonstop and trying to figure out if the two murderers will actually be able to dissuade blame or be confronted with the guilt.
One of many Jimmy Stewart's many Hitchcock collaborations, his performance mostly gets overlooked here in comparison to Vertigo and Rear Window; however, once he arrives at the party it is kind to see him and he delivers another captivating and motivated performance.
In the current days of digital filmmaking and continuous camera shots which can now be processed with computers, it is monumental Hitchcock was able to achieve this feat back in the day with only relentless dedication, but also precise and genius execution.
After the guests arrive, the usual small talk and chit chat commences with those attending including David fiance and a former college professor of the men. After the idle conversation starts to bore, it is mentioned how interesting it would be to murder someone and the consequences of doing so. It's no dig deal to dispose of people you don't like is it? Some party-goers are not keen on this conversation and lead it in a new direction eventually focusing on the missing David who has not yet arrived.
Eventually, the unresolved issue of David's absence is brushed aside for the moment and the guests leave to go about their lives. The college professor returns after having been given verbal clues in the former conversations about the nefarious activity of Phillip and David as well as some physical ones. He confronts the duo and David is unable to hold back.
The mystery has been revealed and the men have to deal with the fallout and consequences.
The physical limitation of the amount of film cameras of the day were able to hold was the only drawback for the way Hitchcock managed to shoot this film. There are only 10 total shots within the film ranging from 4 to 10 minutes. The cuts were achieved through normal editing, but also the actors and camera intersecting for brief moments where a momentary black frame would occur continuing the action right after this moment.
I can't even imagine the amount of rehearsal and takes would have been necessary for both the actors and production crew to orchestrate visual and vocal cues and not making mistakes for such a long time for each shot to be completed successfully. The film feels much like a stage production having all the scenes occur mainly in the living room and foyer areas, but that had to be by design.
With no elaborate staging, the audience is left to enjoy the masterful screenplay nonstop and trying to figure out if the two murderers will actually be able to dissuade blame or be confronted with the guilt.
One of many Jimmy Stewart's many Hitchcock collaborations, his performance mostly gets overlooked here in comparison to Vertigo and Rear Window; however, once he arrives at the party it is kind to see him and he delivers another captivating and motivated performance.
In the current days of digital filmmaking and continuous camera shots which can now be processed with computers, it is monumental Hitchcock was able to achieve this feat back in the day with only relentless dedication, but also precise and genius execution.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Donner Party tale (1 more)
Lots of mystery
Inconsistencies (1 more)
Changes characters referred name too much
Authors Preston and Child did such a great job on 'Old Bones' that once you start reading, you won't be able to put it down.
'Old Bones' follows two women, Nora Kelly and Corrie Swanson, with a small segment following a man named Clive Benton, all of who end up being intertwined within this one novel. The entire story revolves around the dark history of the cannibalistic Donner Party, while bringing in fictitious elements to give the readers a well-rounded adventure.
The story gets rolling after Benton visits Kelly with a historical diary that belonged to a member of the Donner Party- - - Kelly is a well-known archaeologist, while Benton is an accredited historian - - - Benton tells Kelly that the journal revealed a lost camp which had never been discovered by anyone, and that this camp could be one of the biggest archaeological finds of the century. While Kelly has to convince the director of the Archaeology Institute to fund the expedition, Benton springs on her and the director that there is a possibility of twenty million dollars worth of gold coins that belonged to a member of the Donner Party could still be located at this lost camp, and, of course, the director quickly agrees to fund the expedition.
Before this, I have never read a book by Preston and Child, but after reading 'Old Bones,' I am anxious to read their other works. The writing is fluid, and keeps the pace going quite well, and the transition between the two main characters is done flawlessly without any confusion as to whose view point you are viewing. The fictitious take on the historical Donner Party is done masterfully enough that even I had to go back to actual historic documents to see what was true and what was not. In one book, readers get dark history, paranormal elements, archaeology, thriller moments, mystery and suspense.
Although the story is a well-written one, there is one scene that could have had great potential, but nothing ever came of it: "Taking a few more steps, she passed through a particularly dense stand of trees and suddenly emerged into a roughly circular clearing. Odd: there was no reason for a break like this in such thick forest. She shone her light around, but there was nothing: just a soft bed of green moss, undisturbed by tracks, and a few scattered boulders." The way this scene is written leaves readers to believe that this may be important later on, but the area is unfortunately never mentioned again.
The story brings FBI agent Swanson into the lives of Benton and Kelly after a string of grave robberies and one presumed murder takes place; the former and latter have one thing in common: they are descendants of a member belonging to the Donner Party.
" 'So where do we fit into this?' asked Nora.
'The commonality I referred to. All four individuals were descended from a single person: a man named Parkin.'
Nora saw Clive start in surprise. 'Albert Parkin?' he asked. 'Of the Donner Party?'
'Exactly. And I've been led to understand he's one of the individuals in the camp you're excavating.' " Agent Swanson isn't exactly welcomed with open arms at the expedition.
The amount of archaeological understanding that was put into this novel is astounding. Preston and Child relay a lot of terms and devices used in the career field such as when Benton uses a bamboo pick to loosen the surface of a quad area and a whisk to gently work dirt away from findings. But this story isn't all archaeological terms, there's also a lot of great development among the characters.
These characters are written differently just enough that the reader should be able to tell them apart easily. Kelly is a leading archaeologist, who has led many different expeditions, but she is also still dealing with the grief of losing her husband years before. Benton is a historian that is a descendant of a member belonging to the Donner Party,and Swanson is a junior FBI agent that is eager to work on her first active case. Even minor characters are distinct among themselves.
Yet, the story is not flawless, there are quite a few inconsistencies, but the major problem I have found with the novel is the changing of characters' names in which they are addressed by. One scene, Nora would be referred to as Kelly - her last name - then more than usually the next paragraph, she would be called Nora. This happens with the main characters too often than it should, that it can confuse the reader and upset the flow of the story itself.
And unfortunately, the paranormal and horror elements are few and far between. We get an amazing retelling of the Donner Party tragedy not once, but throughout the story, reliving the cannibalism that took place, as well as the fictional element of gold leading to murder:
" 'Then you'll recall that when Wolfinger's wagon became stuck while crossing the Great Salt Lake Desert, two men - - - Reinhardt and Spitzer- - - volunteered to go back and help dig it out. Those two men returned, claiming Indians had killed Wolfinger.'
' Yes, yes, ' Dr. Fugit said, concealing a growing impatience.
'Well, that was a lie. Even at the time the members of the party were suspicious that something untoward had happened to Wolfinger. Reinhardt and Spitzer were viewed with a great deal if suspicion, and the two men afterwards kept to themselves and were somewhat ostracized by the rest. When Reinhardt was dying of starvation in the Lost Camp, he made a deathbed confession: Wolfinger had not been killed by Indians. Reinhardt and Spitzer had gone back, murdered Wolfinger, and taken his gold.' He paused. ' This information has been known to historians for over a century, but nobody, incredibly enough, thought to ask the next question: what happened to the gold? ' "
I highly recommend this book to fans of Thomas Harris; the writing is very similar and the character Swanson reminds me a lot of Harris' character Clarice Starling (refer to 'Silence of the Lambs' and 'Hannibal'). I also recommend this book to anyone who enjoys history, especially that of dark history, such as the Donner Party tale.
'Old Bones' follows two women, Nora Kelly and Corrie Swanson, with a small segment following a man named Clive Benton, all of who end up being intertwined within this one novel. The entire story revolves around the dark history of the cannibalistic Donner Party, while bringing in fictitious elements to give the readers a well-rounded adventure.
The story gets rolling after Benton visits Kelly with a historical diary that belonged to a member of the Donner Party- - - Kelly is a well-known archaeologist, while Benton is an accredited historian - - - Benton tells Kelly that the journal revealed a lost camp which had never been discovered by anyone, and that this camp could be one of the biggest archaeological finds of the century. While Kelly has to convince the director of the Archaeology Institute to fund the expedition, Benton springs on her and the director that there is a possibility of twenty million dollars worth of gold coins that belonged to a member of the Donner Party could still be located at this lost camp, and, of course, the director quickly agrees to fund the expedition.
Before this, I have never read a book by Preston and Child, but after reading 'Old Bones,' I am anxious to read their other works. The writing is fluid, and keeps the pace going quite well, and the transition between the two main characters is done flawlessly without any confusion as to whose view point you are viewing. The fictitious take on the historical Donner Party is done masterfully enough that even I had to go back to actual historic documents to see what was true and what was not. In one book, readers get dark history, paranormal elements, archaeology, thriller moments, mystery and suspense.
Although the story is a well-written one, there is one scene that could have had great potential, but nothing ever came of it: "Taking a few more steps, she passed through a particularly dense stand of trees and suddenly emerged into a roughly circular clearing. Odd: there was no reason for a break like this in such thick forest. She shone her light around, but there was nothing: just a soft bed of green moss, undisturbed by tracks, and a few scattered boulders." The way this scene is written leaves readers to believe that this may be important later on, but the area is unfortunately never mentioned again.
The story brings FBI agent Swanson into the lives of Benton and Kelly after a string of grave robberies and one presumed murder takes place; the former and latter have one thing in common: they are descendants of a member belonging to the Donner Party.
" 'So where do we fit into this?' asked Nora.
'The commonality I referred to. All four individuals were descended from a single person: a man named Parkin.'
Nora saw Clive start in surprise. 'Albert Parkin?' he asked. 'Of the Donner Party?'
'Exactly. And I've been led to understand he's one of the individuals in the camp you're excavating.' " Agent Swanson isn't exactly welcomed with open arms at the expedition.
The amount of archaeological understanding that was put into this novel is astounding. Preston and Child relay a lot of terms and devices used in the career field such as when Benton uses a bamboo pick to loosen the surface of a quad area and a whisk to gently work dirt away from findings. But this story isn't all archaeological terms, there's also a lot of great development among the characters.
These characters are written differently just enough that the reader should be able to tell them apart easily. Kelly is a leading archaeologist, who has led many different expeditions, but she is also still dealing with the grief of losing her husband years before. Benton is a historian that is a descendant of a member belonging to the Donner Party,and Swanson is a junior FBI agent that is eager to work on her first active case. Even minor characters are distinct among themselves.
Yet, the story is not flawless, there are quite a few inconsistencies, but the major problem I have found with the novel is the changing of characters' names in which they are addressed by. One scene, Nora would be referred to as Kelly - her last name - then more than usually the next paragraph, she would be called Nora. This happens with the main characters too often than it should, that it can confuse the reader and upset the flow of the story itself.
And unfortunately, the paranormal and horror elements are few and far between. We get an amazing retelling of the Donner Party tragedy not once, but throughout the story, reliving the cannibalism that took place, as well as the fictional element of gold leading to murder:
" 'Then you'll recall that when Wolfinger's wagon became stuck while crossing the Great Salt Lake Desert, two men - - - Reinhardt and Spitzer- - - volunteered to go back and help dig it out. Those two men returned, claiming Indians had killed Wolfinger.'
' Yes, yes, ' Dr. Fugit said, concealing a growing impatience.
'Well, that was a lie. Even at the time the members of the party were suspicious that something untoward had happened to Wolfinger. Reinhardt and Spitzer were viewed with a great deal if suspicion, and the two men afterwards kept to themselves and were somewhat ostracized by the rest. When Reinhardt was dying of starvation in the Lost Camp, he made a deathbed confession: Wolfinger had not been killed by Indians. Reinhardt and Spitzer had gone back, murdered Wolfinger, and taken his gold.' He paused. ' This information has been known to historians for over a century, but nobody, incredibly enough, thought to ask the next question: what happened to the gold? ' "
I highly recommend this book to fans of Thomas Harris; the writing is very similar and the character Swanson reminds me a lot of Harris' character Clarice Starling (refer to 'Silence of the Lambs' and 'Hannibal'). I also recommend this book to anyone who enjoys history, especially that of dark history, such as the Donner Party tale.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated An Unwanted Guest in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Eerie read with a rather tidy ending
Mitchell's Inn is a lovely lodge far away from the hustle and bustle of it all--there's no wifi, just a relaxing setting, good food, and comfortable rooms. But this particular weekend, things go awry when a bad storm hits, covering the Inn in ice and knocking out the power: there's no phone service or the ability for anyone to leave the premises. Then, by morning, one of the guests is dead. It could be an accident, but no one can say for sure. And when the second guest dies, it's certain: they are trapped with a murderer. There's no power, no contact with the world, and someone is slowly killing them off. Is someone else next and how do the remaining guests stay safe?
"It feels like they're playing at something, some sort of parlor game, or murder mystery evening, with the lights out. Only no one's having fun."
Believe it or not, I've never read a book by Shari Lapena, but I was drawn to this one due to the Agatha Christie comparisons, as I'm a sucker for anything similar to Christie. And this one definitely had some likenesses, with the guests trapped in the Inn, limiting our pool of suspects (and victims). Weirdly enough, my brain kept occasionally going to the movie Clue too - silly, I know, but something about the setting!
This book draws you in from the beginning; the first death happens fairly quickly. There are a lot of characters to keep track of: most are in pairs, and I found myself flipping back a page or two trying to remember who was attached to whom for a while. The narration style is in very short paragraphs, each from the perspective of a different guest. This gives you a bit of whiplash feel at times, as you never really get to fully immerse yourself in anyone's point of view. Still, while I did feel things slowed slightly after the first death, for the most part it keeps things moving fairly quickly and lets you see things from a variety of sides.
Lapena is also very descriptive and sets the scene well. It's easy to picture this lovely Inn--which quickly turns dark and disastrous. The book is actually creepy and eerie at times; I won't go into detail as to why, to avoid spoilers, but I definitely found myself a little spooked. In fact, I was surprised the guests were so calm in the beginning, what with a dead woman and no power! (Don't worry, it won't last.) The novel allows you to think how you'd feel in that particular situation. It certainly doesn't encourage you to go vacation at a remote Inn anytime soon.
I was certainly completely perplexed at whodunnit, so kudos to Lapena for that. With such a limited cast of characters (and getting slimmer every moment), that's quite a feat. I thought the ending was a bit tidy and I was left feeling oddly letdown; I'm not sure I can even explain why.
Overall, I enjoyed this one even I didn't wildly love it. It does have a bit of a Christie feel to it, and it kept me guessing. The scene setting is excellent, and I liked the eerie, trapped sense I felt while reading. It wraps up a tad neatly, but I'd still recommend it.
"It feels like they're playing at something, some sort of parlor game, or murder mystery evening, with the lights out. Only no one's having fun."
Believe it or not, I've never read a book by Shari Lapena, but I was drawn to this one due to the Agatha Christie comparisons, as I'm a sucker for anything similar to Christie. And this one definitely had some likenesses, with the guests trapped in the Inn, limiting our pool of suspects (and victims). Weirdly enough, my brain kept occasionally going to the movie Clue too - silly, I know, but something about the setting!
This book draws you in from the beginning; the first death happens fairly quickly. There are a lot of characters to keep track of: most are in pairs, and I found myself flipping back a page or two trying to remember who was attached to whom for a while. The narration style is in very short paragraphs, each from the perspective of a different guest. This gives you a bit of whiplash feel at times, as you never really get to fully immerse yourself in anyone's point of view. Still, while I did feel things slowed slightly after the first death, for the most part it keeps things moving fairly quickly and lets you see things from a variety of sides.
Lapena is also very descriptive and sets the scene well. It's easy to picture this lovely Inn--which quickly turns dark and disastrous. The book is actually creepy and eerie at times; I won't go into detail as to why, to avoid spoilers, but I definitely found myself a little spooked. In fact, I was surprised the guests were so calm in the beginning, what with a dead woman and no power! (Don't worry, it won't last.) The novel allows you to think how you'd feel in that particular situation. It certainly doesn't encourage you to go vacation at a remote Inn anytime soon.
I was certainly completely perplexed at whodunnit, so kudos to Lapena for that. With such a limited cast of characters (and getting slimmer every moment), that's quite a feat. I thought the ending was a bit tidy and I was left feeling oddly letdown; I'm not sure I can even explain why.
Overall, I enjoyed this one even I didn't wildly love it. It does have a bit of a Christie feel to it, and it kept me guessing. The scene setting is excellent, and I liked the eerie, trapped sense I felt while reading. It wraps up a tad neatly, but I'd still recommend it.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Then She Was Gone in Books
Apr 27, 2019
Just Okay
I loved I Found You by Lisa Jewell, so when I read the synopsis of her other book, Then She Was Gone, it was a book I knew I had to read. While this book was still a good read, it wasn't great, and I was left feeling a little disappointed.
The plot for Then She Was Gone was interesting enough although I did predict the mystery of why Poppy looked like Ellie early on. There were a couple of plot twists that I didn't see coming though of which I was thankful. I was constantly trying to figure out what Floyd's endgame was when it came to Laurel. I was also always hopeful that Ellie would return home safely. I thought the ending was done nicely. It tied up all loose ends and provided me with enough closure to be satisfied.
The one thing that bothered me, and I know it's a personal preference, was how the book was written in present tense aside from when Ellie and Noelle were telling their side of the story. It just really irks me when books are written this way. That really seemed to take away from the story for me.
The characters in Then She Was Gone were mostly believable. I had a hard time believing Noelle's side of things could actually happen for as long as they did when it came to Poppy. I also had a hard time believing Noelle could stay a virgin for so long. Poppy seemed very intelligent for her young years to not have been in some kind of advanced schooling. Poppy came across more of an adult than a child in every scene she was in. The author does attempt to explain why Poppy is the way she is, but I still found Poppy a bit unrealistic for a little girl. I liked Laurel, and I could only imagine her pain, but I felt like she was too uncaring toward her daughter Hanna and her son Jake. Maybe I'd have to be in Laurel's shoes to understand what it's like (although I pray I never am). It would have been nice to get a glimpse of Hanna's and Jake's point of view of things. Jake is hardly ever mentioned in the book, and there were many times I had to rack my brain to remember who Jake was whilst reading Then She Was Gone. It seems like Jake was put in as an afterthought to quickly tie up some loose ends. I enjoyed the character of Paul, Laurel's ex-husband. I admired his sunny disposition. Sara-Jade was another character I liked a lot although she wasn't in the book often enough. I liked Floyd and felt he was a well fleshed out character, but I was always wary when it came to him.
The pacing was done well enough. My interest never wavered, and I found myself needing to know what happened next to see if my predictions were correct. Then She Was Gone is definitely a page turner. I'll give it that.
Trigger warnings for Then She Was Gone include profanities, sexual situations (although not graphic), kidnapping, drinking alcohol, violence, death, murder, and miscarriages.
Overall, Then She Was Gone is just a decent read. The plot is interesting enough, and some of the characters are well written. For me, the present tense use really took away my enjoyment of the book. I would still recommend Then She Was Gone by Lisa Jewell to those aged 17+ especially to those who like thrillers.
The plot for Then She Was Gone was interesting enough although I did predict the mystery of why Poppy looked like Ellie early on. There were a couple of plot twists that I didn't see coming though of which I was thankful. I was constantly trying to figure out what Floyd's endgame was when it came to Laurel. I was also always hopeful that Ellie would return home safely. I thought the ending was done nicely. It tied up all loose ends and provided me with enough closure to be satisfied.
The one thing that bothered me, and I know it's a personal preference, was how the book was written in present tense aside from when Ellie and Noelle were telling their side of the story. It just really irks me when books are written this way. That really seemed to take away from the story for me.
The characters in Then She Was Gone were mostly believable. I had a hard time believing Noelle's side of things could actually happen for as long as they did when it came to Poppy. I also had a hard time believing Noelle could stay a virgin for so long. Poppy seemed very intelligent for her young years to not have been in some kind of advanced schooling. Poppy came across more of an adult than a child in every scene she was in. The author does attempt to explain why Poppy is the way she is, but I still found Poppy a bit unrealistic for a little girl. I liked Laurel, and I could only imagine her pain, but I felt like she was too uncaring toward her daughter Hanna and her son Jake. Maybe I'd have to be in Laurel's shoes to understand what it's like (although I pray I never am). It would have been nice to get a glimpse of Hanna's and Jake's point of view of things. Jake is hardly ever mentioned in the book, and there were many times I had to rack my brain to remember who Jake was whilst reading Then She Was Gone. It seems like Jake was put in as an afterthought to quickly tie up some loose ends. I enjoyed the character of Paul, Laurel's ex-husband. I admired his sunny disposition. Sara-Jade was another character I liked a lot although she wasn't in the book often enough. I liked Floyd and felt he was a well fleshed out character, but I was always wary when it came to him.
The pacing was done well enough. My interest never wavered, and I found myself needing to know what happened next to see if my predictions were correct. Then She Was Gone is definitely a page turner. I'll give it that.
Trigger warnings for Then She Was Gone include profanities, sexual situations (although not graphic), kidnapping, drinking alcohol, violence, death, murder, and miscarriages.
Overall, Then She Was Gone is just a decent read. The plot is interesting enough, and some of the characters are well written. For me, the present tense use really took away my enjoyment of the book. I would still recommend Then She Was Gone by Lisa Jewell to those aged 17+ especially to those who like thrillers.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Jacket (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The human mind is a deep and complex organ that to this day is not fully understood by the best scientific minds on the planet. It is known that only a small percentage of the mind is actually used, with the vast majority of the unused portion presenting a mystery. There are those who have suggested that those individuals who show paranormal abilities are simply individuals who have learned to use areas of the brain that are normally dormant.
In the new psychological thriller The Jacket, Adrian Brody plays Jack Starks, a Gulf war soldier who is shot in the head in 1991 during combat operations.
Jack survives this ordeal as he awakens during medical triage despite being classified as dead by the attending medics. Flash forward to late 1992, and Jack is on his way to Canada through a cold and remote section of Vermont It is learned that Jack has some mental blocks in his head via a series of flashbacks, but when he comes to the aid of a stranded motorist and her young daughter, Jack soon finds his life taking an unexpected turn.
Despite being a good Samaritan, Jack is forced to accept a ride from a passing drifter miles later, when the mother refuses to assist him. Flash forward again and Jack is being charged with the murder of a police officer who Jack insists was killed by the man who picked them up. Since Jack has a mental condition, his claims of the driver who picked him up are dismissed as mental delusions.
Jack is committed to a mental institution where under the treatment of Dr. Becker (Kris Kristofferson), Jack is bound in a straight jacket and locked in a storage shelf in the basement morgue. While in the box, Jack travels 17 years into the future where he is reunited with Jackie (Kiera Knightley), the little girl he helped years earlier. Jackie has fallen upon hard times and refuses to believe that the person before her is the same Jack Starks who helped her years ago, as she claims that Jack Starks died years ago in the asylum.
As Jack comes in and out of treatment his perception of the events in the box comes into question due to his condition, and only the supportive Dr. Lorenson (Jennifer Jason Leigh), seems sympathetic to his concerns that he is going to die in the next few days.
The film jumps between the past, present, future where Jack attempts to uncover what happened to him with the help of Jackie so that he can try to prevent it from happening or at the very least, make the future a better place for those in the past who can avoid their fates.
The strength of the film is the solid work by the two leads as Brody and Knightley work well with one another and infuses their characters with compassion and humanity while showing their flaws as they attempt to deal with the hardships of their situations.
While some may take exception to the dark tone of the film, I preferred to look at the interesting twists to the story and how the film makes you think and interpret situations and outcomes rather than handing it to the audience in a tidy package.
In the new psychological thriller The Jacket, Adrian Brody plays Jack Starks, a Gulf war soldier who is shot in the head in 1991 during combat operations.
Jack survives this ordeal as he awakens during medical triage despite being classified as dead by the attending medics. Flash forward to late 1992, and Jack is on his way to Canada through a cold and remote section of Vermont It is learned that Jack has some mental blocks in his head via a series of flashbacks, but when he comes to the aid of a stranded motorist and her young daughter, Jack soon finds his life taking an unexpected turn.
Despite being a good Samaritan, Jack is forced to accept a ride from a passing drifter miles later, when the mother refuses to assist him. Flash forward again and Jack is being charged with the murder of a police officer who Jack insists was killed by the man who picked them up. Since Jack has a mental condition, his claims of the driver who picked him up are dismissed as mental delusions.
Jack is committed to a mental institution where under the treatment of Dr. Becker (Kris Kristofferson), Jack is bound in a straight jacket and locked in a storage shelf in the basement morgue. While in the box, Jack travels 17 years into the future where he is reunited with Jackie (Kiera Knightley), the little girl he helped years earlier. Jackie has fallen upon hard times and refuses to believe that the person before her is the same Jack Starks who helped her years ago, as she claims that Jack Starks died years ago in the asylum.
As Jack comes in and out of treatment his perception of the events in the box comes into question due to his condition, and only the supportive Dr. Lorenson (Jennifer Jason Leigh), seems sympathetic to his concerns that he is going to die in the next few days.
The film jumps between the past, present, future where Jack attempts to uncover what happened to him with the help of Jackie so that he can try to prevent it from happening or at the very least, make the future a better place for those in the past who can avoid their fates.
The strength of the film is the solid work by the two leads as Brody and Knightley work well with one another and infuses their characters with compassion and humanity while showing their flaws as they attempt to deal with the hardships of their situations.
While some may take exception to the dark tone of the film, I preferred to look at the interesting twists to the story and how the film makes you think and interpret situations and outcomes rather than handing it to the audience in a tidy package.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Ashes of Glass in Books
Jan 4, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ashes of Glass is a gorgeous retelling of Cinderella, and you all know what a sucker I am for a retelling!
Arella's upbringing is one we have heard numerous times, both through print and on screen. For this reason Emma Hill presents this chapter of Arella's life almost as a misty, memory montage; preferring to focus on the upcoming tale she has to tell. I must say I greatly appreciated this originality and confindence: Hill knows she has an absolute gem of a story here and doesn't need to pad it out with the sad turn of events we all know.
Anyone who has read "So, This is Love" by Elizabeth Lim will see some similarities within the two storylines in that Ella begins working in the Palace. However, Hill's Ella is , in my opinion, a much stronger character from the outset. She has no qualms in challenging Prince Freddie's prejudices in respects to gypsies and, on the whole, does not change her behaviour towards Freddie once she discovers he is the Prince.
Ella and Freddie are only two of a whole cast of characters who are beautifully portrayed within this novel. I really loved the added details such as the King's interest in elephants, the fact that the Duke was nicer (but still quite strict) and the fact that Ella had a friend alongside her. All of these factors made the story a lot more real than the classic fairy tale. Hill made it so easy for the reader to fall in love with Ella and Freddie as a couple, especially because they were not perfect and experienced real emotions such as doubt and jealousy. If anything, our love for these two made it even easier for us to hate the villain, Lord DiFortunato.
Now, we all love to hate the sleazy, slimy villain in a story, but this guy was something else! Emma Hill's villain literally made my skin crawl and, at the point in the story where Ella's curiosity puts her in a whole heap of danger, the suspense was too much I had to skim read just to know whether she was going to be OK.
The one character I did want a bit more of was Lady Izabella: I suspect she was likely Freddie's godmother due to her friendship with the Queen and I think this could have been cleverly played on a little more. Don't get me wrong she was a charming (and necessary) background character but I would have liked to see her a little more.
EJ Hill also included a lot of nods to the original fairy tale which were really appreciated. Of course the iconic pink dress becomes ruined and the ballgown is a must but Ella's affectionate use of Prince Charming as a nickname for Freddie was just gorgeous. Oh and losing the shoe: genius!
This is not to say this story lacks originality though. There is a thrilling sub plot into the investigation into the King's death which moves alongside and intersects Arella's plotline beautifully.
I would say that the chapters do shift from Arella to Freddie quite often and this could be quite confusing at times. Also faith plays a huge part within the story. I already knew Emma Hill was a Christian so this wasn't a surprise and it didn't put me off the story at all. I do think that it was included quite heavily though.
If you want the story of Cinderella, with a swoon-worthy Prince, more action, less Stepmother/sisters and an underlying murder mystery. This is the book for you!
Arella's upbringing is one we have heard numerous times, both through print and on screen. For this reason Emma Hill presents this chapter of Arella's life almost as a misty, memory montage; preferring to focus on the upcoming tale she has to tell. I must say I greatly appreciated this originality and confindence: Hill knows she has an absolute gem of a story here and doesn't need to pad it out with the sad turn of events we all know.
Anyone who has read "So, This is Love" by Elizabeth Lim will see some similarities within the two storylines in that Ella begins working in the Palace. However, Hill's Ella is , in my opinion, a much stronger character from the outset. She has no qualms in challenging Prince Freddie's prejudices in respects to gypsies and, on the whole, does not change her behaviour towards Freddie once she discovers he is the Prince.
Ella and Freddie are only two of a whole cast of characters who are beautifully portrayed within this novel. I really loved the added details such as the King's interest in elephants, the fact that the Duke was nicer (but still quite strict) and the fact that Ella had a friend alongside her. All of these factors made the story a lot more real than the classic fairy tale. Hill made it so easy for the reader to fall in love with Ella and Freddie as a couple, especially because they were not perfect and experienced real emotions such as doubt and jealousy. If anything, our love for these two made it even easier for us to hate the villain, Lord DiFortunato.
Now, we all love to hate the sleazy, slimy villain in a story, but this guy was something else! Emma Hill's villain literally made my skin crawl and, at the point in the story where Ella's curiosity puts her in a whole heap of danger, the suspense was too much I had to skim read just to know whether she was going to be OK.
The one character I did want a bit more of was Lady Izabella: I suspect she was likely Freddie's godmother due to her friendship with the Queen and I think this could have been cleverly played on a little more. Don't get me wrong she was a charming (and necessary) background character but I would have liked to see her a little more.
EJ Hill also included a lot of nods to the original fairy tale which were really appreciated. Of course the iconic pink dress becomes ruined and the ballgown is a must but Ella's affectionate use of Prince Charming as a nickname for Freddie was just gorgeous. Oh and losing the shoe: genius!
This is not to say this story lacks originality though. There is a thrilling sub plot into the investigation into the King's death which moves alongside and intersects Arella's plotline beautifully.
I would say that the chapters do shift from Arella to Freddie quite often and this could be quite confusing at times. Also faith plays a huge part within the story. I already knew Emma Hill was a Christian so this wasn't a surprise and it didn't put me off the story at all. I do think that it was included quite heavily though.
If you want the story of Cinderella, with a swoon-worthy Prince, more action, less Stepmother/sisters and an underlying murder mystery. This is the book for you!