Search
Uptown Oracle (24 KP) rated Moroda in Books
Jun 30, 2017
A Great Debut Fantasy Novel!
As we traipse the countries and cities of Linaria following a band of unlikely comrades, we're introduced to magic, dragons, and a foe leading a trail of destruction in his wake. Moroda and her allies must find a way to save Linaria before the war destroys them and everything around them.
One of my favourite parts of the book is that there's multiple wonderful characters. We have our main character, Moroda and her sister Eryn, two former Goldstones trying to survive after their fathers death. There's Morgen an Imperial Guard from Corhaven, who's unsure as to whether life in the Guard is for him. Amarah, a brusk sky pirate who cares more for money and treasure. Palom and Anahrik, two Ittallan traders who want to get back to their homeland before war hits. Sapora, a Varkain who also wants to return to his homeland, away from the prejudice against his kind. And Kohl, an exiled Arillian who can control wind and lightening. Groups are often used within the fantasy genre but Moroda doesn't confuse you with multitudes of characters.
The world of Linaria has different prejudices and stereotypes against races and the inclusion of these races allows to get a much better, unbiased opinion. Each of our characters has their own thoughts, motivations, backgrounds and histories. Despite preconceived views of each other, the characters are all individual. There's also strong character growth, especially for Moroda throughout the book. There was definitely the risk of falling into common female fantasy tropes with Moroda, but McNeil manages to miss each of these skillfully.
The only criticism is the antagonist, Aciel. Being told by other characters what Aciel was doing and how, is very different to be able to see it. There was a lost connection that I personally like having with the villains. We meet him and he does speak a little bit, but there's definitely that lack of attachment. This criticism is also very personal, as I know a lot of people wouldn't mind this at all.
As with any fantasy novel, you need a wonderful fantasy land. There's exploration of multiple cities, and also some comparisons by the characters themselves. Each place has it's own background and vivid descriptions. I'm really looking forward to more exploration of Sereth, the Varkain capital. There's also undertones of myth, lore and legend within Linaria. Which although not explored completely within this book will be fantastic to build upon in later books.
Moroda is romance free which I loved. I've read so many books recently where the romantic subplot overshadows the real plot, and this was so refreshing. The focus was on the friendships being made over the journey, and the sisterly bond between Moroda and Eryn.
Overall I loved Moroda. Perfect to go into reading more over summer as I've finally finished exams!
One of my favourite parts of the book is that there's multiple wonderful characters. We have our main character, Moroda and her sister Eryn, two former Goldstones trying to survive after their fathers death. There's Morgen an Imperial Guard from Corhaven, who's unsure as to whether life in the Guard is for him. Amarah, a brusk sky pirate who cares more for money and treasure. Palom and Anahrik, two Ittallan traders who want to get back to their homeland before war hits. Sapora, a Varkain who also wants to return to his homeland, away from the prejudice against his kind. And Kohl, an exiled Arillian who can control wind and lightening. Groups are often used within the fantasy genre but Moroda doesn't confuse you with multitudes of characters.
The world of Linaria has different prejudices and stereotypes against races and the inclusion of these races allows to get a much better, unbiased opinion. Each of our characters has their own thoughts, motivations, backgrounds and histories. Despite preconceived views of each other, the characters are all individual. There's also strong character growth, especially for Moroda throughout the book. There was definitely the risk of falling into common female fantasy tropes with Moroda, but McNeil manages to miss each of these skillfully.
The only criticism is the antagonist, Aciel. Being told by other characters what Aciel was doing and how, is very different to be able to see it. There was a lost connection that I personally like having with the villains. We meet him and he does speak a little bit, but there's definitely that lack of attachment. This criticism is also very personal, as I know a lot of people wouldn't mind this at all.
As with any fantasy novel, you need a wonderful fantasy land. There's exploration of multiple cities, and also some comparisons by the characters themselves. Each place has it's own background and vivid descriptions. I'm really looking forward to more exploration of Sereth, the Varkain capital. There's also undertones of myth, lore and legend within Linaria. Which although not explored completely within this book will be fantastic to build upon in later books.
Moroda is romance free which I loved. I've read so many books recently where the romantic subplot overshadows the real plot, and this was so refreshing. The focus was on the friendships being made over the journey, and the sisterly bond between Moroda and Eryn.
Overall I loved Moroda. Perfect to go into reading more over summer as I've finally finished exams!
Amy (7 KP) rated Goddess of Troy in Books
Jan 17, 2018 (Updated Jan 17, 2018)
Terrible. Total destruction.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The premise is one that P.C. Cast recycles throughout her work which is of taking modern women and dropping them into the worlds of myth and magic.
A brilliant idea, occasionally well done in her other novels...not unfortunately for this one.
The problem begins with the plot the goddesses send the women back to end the war...okay, but why not do it themselves? The flimsy excuses just don't hold up. The plot is weakly manipulated and transparently executed to make the neccessity of the modern women going back possible.
Problem 2-is the blatant racism of making the indipendant modern black woman into a white slave girl.
Problem 3- problematic sex scenes which read as thinly disguised rape scenes. A male character is hypnotises and the main female character has sex with him....this is made okay by him giving her consent afterwards. Which is not how consent works. This book being intended for young women just becoming sexual is at best concerning and at most incredibly damaging whilst promoting male rape under the guise of female empowerment.
The dialogue when more old fashioned from the warriors is charming and engaging...from the modern women we are forced to deal with censored cringy curse words, way too much teenage level gossip, and not a smidge of maturity in sight...from grown ass women.
For thirty plus successful women the character profiles should have engaged and fascinated, unfortunately those profiles were ignored during in-story application and replaced with twittering, childish teens who giggle over the word penis and lose their minds over the most vacuous and senseless things.
The plot centres around a boring, romance, and changes the original relationship of Achilles and Patroclus from its canonical implied romance to one of cousins...this at best is a misguided deviation from the canonical Iliad relationship they had.
It could easily be read as a blatant attack and hideous misuse of the original content, that could given the sheer overwhelming heteronormaty we are forced to endure be at its worst an erasure of rare LGBT representation from historical content.
The relationships are forced, and their happy endings so saccharine it hurts to read.
The siege of Troy is horrifically rewritten to make the main female lead the deciding factor that ensured victory and removed nearly all canonical battle events.
Throughout the novel not much happens, and by time something does you just want the novel over with.
It doesn't read as mythology inspired, the myths and characters are used as cheap prop and staging whilst removing the deep themes, and messages that ensured their endurance throughout time.
The vocabulary is below pre-teen level, the grammar is sub-par, and the pacing and plotting absolutely abysmal.
How this book ever made it to print in this state is a large and curious mystery for me.
I cannot urge you to skip this book enough, Margaret George's 'Helen of Troy' is a far more valuable use of your time if you are in want of mythology inspired fantasy...and does so without annihilating the entire original stories.
A brilliant idea, occasionally well done in her other novels...not unfortunately for this one.
The problem begins with the plot the goddesses send the women back to end the war...okay, but why not do it themselves? The flimsy excuses just don't hold up. The plot is weakly manipulated and transparently executed to make the neccessity of the modern women going back possible.
Problem 2-is the blatant racism of making the indipendant modern black woman into a white slave girl.
Problem 3- problematic sex scenes which read as thinly disguised rape scenes. A male character is hypnotises and the main female character has sex with him....this is made okay by him giving her consent afterwards. Which is not how consent works. This book being intended for young women just becoming sexual is at best concerning and at most incredibly damaging whilst promoting male rape under the guise of female empowerment.
The dialogue when more old fashioned from the warriors is charming and engaging...from the modern women we are forced to deal with censored cringy curse words, way too much teenage level gossip, and not a smidge of maturity in sight...from grown ass women.
For thirty plus successful women the character profiles should have engaged and fascinated, unfortunately those profiles were ignored during in-story application and replaced with twittering, childish teens who giggle over the word penis and lose their minds over the most vacuous and senseless things.
The plot centres around a boring, romance, and changes the original relationship of Achilles and Patroclus from its canonical implied romance to one of cousins...this at best is a misguided deviation from the canonical Iliad relationship they had.
It could easily be read as a blatant attack and hideous misuse of the original content, that could given the sheer overwhelming heteronormaty we are forced to endure be at its worst an erasure of rare LGBT representation from historical content.
The relationships are forced, and their happy endings so saccharine it hurts to read.
The siege of Troy is horrifically rewritten to make the main female lead the deciding factor that ensured victory and removed nearly all canonical battle events.
Throughout the novel not much happens, and by time something does you just want the novel over with.
It doesn't read as mythology inspired, the myths and characters are used as cheap prop and staging whilst removing the deep themes, and messages that ensured their endurance throughout time.
The vocabulary is below pre-teen level, the grammar is sub-par, and the pacing and plotting absolutely abysmal.
How this book ever made it to print in this state is a large and curious mystery for me.
I cannot urge you to skip this book enough, Margaret George's 'Helen of Troy' is a far more valuable use of your time if you are in want of mythology inspired fantasy...and does so without annihilating the entire original stories.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Goblin in Books
Jul 2, 2019
Brilliant book, well wriiten, original
Winner of the Saltire Society first book of the year award 2017, Goblin, by Ever Dundas is a brilliant and brave first novel. Set in both London during WW2 and in Edinburgh in 2011, the story is told in flashback. For me, the first half of the novel is the best, we meet Goblin as a nine-year-old tomboy with a love for animals and a passion for storytelling - both of which the protagonist collects.
Goblin has a difficult family life; a mother who doesn’t want her, 'Goblin-runt born blue. Nothing can kill you. [...] You're like a cockroach,' (p.5) a father who mends radio’s and barely talks and a brother (David) who spends most of his time in his bedroom. Left to her own devices, the protagonist, her dog Devil, and her two friends Mac and Stevie roam the neighbourhood and hang around in an abandoned worksite. As a collector of stories, Goblin enthusiastically attends the local church with Mac, 'I loved the stories, turning them over in my head, weaving my own.' (p.24) before meeting The Crazy Pigeon Lady who tells her tales of Lizards people from the realm below. The childhood innocence in these chapters, mixed with magic realism, break down the walls of adult reasoning and creates a wonderful suspension of disbelief.
But without giving away the story plot, the suspension of disbelief serves another purpose; to divert the reader (as well as the adult protagonist) from the truth. So, while the adult Goblin searches amongst her tangled past, she takes the reader along for the ride. We meet multiple parents, live life on the road, come alive on the streets and in the circus, explore love, death, desire, and hate – and somewhere in the middle we meet an impressive collection of animals - Goblin has it all. And as far as strong female protagonists go, she’s right up there with Anais Hendricks from Jenni Fagan’s Panopticon, to Janie Ryan in Kerry Hudson’s Tony Hogan Bought Me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, characters who are so real you might just walk by them on the street.
The only teeny tiny criticism about the novel is that the second half spans over a lengthy period of time and it felt a little rushed. However, there is so much to say about this novel, so many angles to discuss, from Queer Theory to Religion, from Myth to Realism, and as a graduate of English Literature I could have a field day studying this book but for now, as a lover of good books, I’ll give it a big thumbs up and a huge recommendation, it’ll be finding a space on my ‘keep’ book shelve.
Goblin, Ever Dundas (2017) published by Saraband
Goblin has a difficult family life; a mother who doesn’t want her, 'Goblin-runt born blue. Nothing can kill you. [...] You're like a cockroach,' (p.5) a father who mends radio’s and barely talks and a brother (David) who spends most of his time in his bedroom. Left to her own devices, the protagonist, her dog Devil, and her two friends Mac and Stevie roam the neighbourhood and hang around in an abandoned worksite. As a collector of stories, Goblin enthusiastically attends the local church with Mac, 'I loved the stories, turning them over in my head, weaving my own.' (p.24) before meeting The Crazy Pigeon Lady who tells her tales of Lizards people from the realm below. The childhood innocence in these chapters, mixed with magic realism, break down the walls of adult reasoning and creates a wonderful suspension of disbelief.
But without giving away the story plot, the suspension of disbelief serves another purpose; to divert the reader (as well as the adult protagonist) from the truth. So, while the adult Goblin searches amongst her tangled past, she takes the reader along for the ride. We meet multiple parents, live life on the road, come alive on the streets and in the circus, explore love, death, desire, and hate – and somewhere in the middle we meet an impressive collection of animals - Goblin has it all. And as far as strong female protagonists go, she’s right up there with Anais Hendricks from Jenni Fagan’s Panopticon, to Janie Ryan in Kerry Hudson’s Tony Hogan Bought Me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, characters who are so real you might just walk by them on the street.
The only teeny tiny criticism about the novel is that the second half spans over a lengthy period of time and it felt a little rushed. However, there is so much to say about this novel, so many angles to discuss, from Queer Theory to Religion, from Myth to Realism, and as a graduate of English Literature I could have a field day studying this book but for now, as a lover of good books, I’ll give it a big thumbs up and a huge recommendation, it’ll be finding a space on my ‘keep’ book shelve.
Goblin, Ever Dundas (2017) published by Saraband
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated The Mistletoe Bride in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Sometimes we all need a little bit of a pick-me-up during the holiday season. It’s supposed to be the most wonderful time of the year and all that, but it’s frickin’ stressful. Between the in-laws and the holiday shopping (not to mention the calories. Yikes!), December can quickly turn into a jolly nightmare. However, The Mistletoe Bride is perfect for getting into the holiday season.
You see, Eve is having her own trouble this Christmas season. Two weeks before Christmas, her fiance breaks everything off with her because he had been having an affair with his secretary and had gotten her pregnant. This leaves her single and with two tickets to paradise she had been going to surprise her husband with. And she plans to do something crazy. Instead of moping at home, or going on vacation by herself, she plans on asking a perfect stranger on going on vacation with her.
Nick Christmas is shocked when a beautiful and mysterious woman asks him to go on a trip with her, and he’s a little wary, too. But after talking with her for a few minutes in a coffee shop, he’s drawn to her. He’s more than ready to go on vacation with Eve and help her forget her sorrows, but he knows there’s more to everything than an innocent holiday when she starts hearing bells in his laugh. After all, Nick is destined to become the next Santa Claus– and it looks like Eve is destined to be his bride.
First of all, “Two Tickets to Paradise” by Eddie Money will get stuck in your head when you’re reading this. So if you know the song but hate it (but why would you hate it, unless you’re insane?), this might not be the best stress reliever. (I happen to like the song just fine, so no harm done to me.)
Like I said before, this is a great pick-me-up for the holiday season. And that’s all it is: a pick me up to enjoy that will get you in the mood for Christmas. If you like made-for-TV Christmas romances, then you’ll probably like The Mistletoe Bride. It’s adorable. Eve is all innocent and vulnerable and kind, and Nick is all strong and protective and kind. He really wants to help Eve heal from the damage done from her last relationship, and he doesn’t rush her even though he knows she’s his mistletoe bride. It’s incredibly sweet. And I really like how Scarlett Jade build the magic and myth of Santa Claus like she did. Inheriting the role of Santa, a magic suit that fits all Santas perfectly, the knowledge of everyone, as if he’s a god…. it’s pretty awesome.
But the book isn’t perfect. It was anticlimactic, honestly. Yes, there was a lot of suspense what with the Winter Elf trying to destroy Christmas and the race to the altar and everything, but it was rushed. The Winter Elf didn’t even come in until later and probably just to add a little spice to the mainly bland aftermath of Eve’s and Nick’s betrothal. The big villain in the whole book just wanted to make toys for Santa’s workshop. That’s it. I mean really? It’s a romance, not a thriller, I know, but we could have drawn it out a little bit more.
There also shouldn’t have been any sex scenes in this book. I know, this is a really strange complaint for me. After all I love sex scenes and they’re never a problem, right? (But hell is not freezing over right now because the Winter Elf is too effing busy making toys for Santa to cause some damn chaos!) The thing is, the love interest is Santa. Even if he’s young and about to marry his soul mate, he should not have sex appeal. Why? Because he’s Santa. He defined at least a third of my childhood (I really love Christmas) and he’s supposed to be a jolly gift-giver who loves cookies. Having a Santa Clause with sex appeal is like having a Mickey Mouse with sex appeal. Just. Don’t. Do it.
Even Spock thinks a sexy Santa is weird.
Since I was in the right mood for this book when I read it, I’m giving it four out of five stars. But most days I would probably only give it three.
You see, Eve is having her own trouble this Christmas season. Two weeks before Christmas, her fiance breaks everything off with her because he had been having an affair with his secretary and had gotten her pregnant. This leaves her single and with two tickets to paradise she had been going to surprise her husband with. And she plans to do something crazy. Instead of moping at home, or going on vacation by herself, she plans on asking a perfect stranger on going on vacation with her.
Nick Christmas is shocked when a beautiful and mysterious woman asks him to go on a trip with her, and he’s a little wary, too. But after talking with her for a few minutes in a coffee shop, he’s drawn to her. He’s more than ready to go on vacation with Eve and help her forget her sorrows, but he knows there’s more to everything than an innocent holiday when she starts hearing bells in his laugh. After all, Nick is destined to become the next Santa Claus– and it looks like Eve is destined to be his bride.
First of all, “Two Tickets to Paradise” by Eddie Money will get stuck in your head when you’re reading this. So if you know the song but hate it (but why would you hate it, unless you’re insane?), this might not be the best stress reliever. (I happen to like the song just fine, so no harm done to me.)
Like I said before, this is a great pick-me-up for the holiday season. And that’s all it is: a pick me up to enjoy that will get you in the mood for Christmas. If you like made-for-TV Christmas romances, then you’ll probably like The Mistletoe Bride. It’s adorable. Eve is all innocent and vulnerable and kind, and Nick is all strong and protective and kind. He really wants to help Eve heal from the damage done from her last relationship, and he doesn’t rush her even though he knows she’s his mistletoe bride. It’s incredibly sweet. And I really like how Scarlett Jade build the magic and myth of Santa Claus like she did. Inheriting the role of Santa, a magic suit that fits all Santas perfectly, the knowledge of everyone, as if he’s a god…. it’s pretty awesome.
But the book isn’t perfect. It was anticlimactic, honestly. Yes, there was a lot of suspense what with the Winter Elf trying to destroy Christmas and the race to the altar and everything, but it was rushed. The Winter Elf didn’t even come in until later and probably just to add a little spice to the mainly bland aftermath of Eve’s and Nick’s betrothal. The big villain in the whole book just wanted to make toys for Santa’s workshop. That’s it. I mean really? It’s a romance, not a thriller, I know, but we could have drawn it out a little bit more.
There also shouldn’t have been any sex scenes in this book. I know, this is a really strange complaint for me. After all I love sex scenes and they’re never a problem, right? (But hell is not freezing over right now because the Winter Elf is too effing busy making toys for Santa to cause some damn chaos!) The thing is, the love interest is Santa. Even if he’s young and about to marry his soul mate, he should not have sex appeal. Why? Because he’s Santa. He defined at least a third of my childhood (I really love Christmas) and he’s supposed to be a jolly gift-giver who loves cookies. Having a Santa Clause with sex appeal is like having a Mickey Mouse with sex appeal. Just. Don’t. Do it.
Even Spock thinks a sexy Santa is weird.
Since I was in the right mood for this book when I read it, I’m giving it four out of five stars. But most days I would probably only give it three.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Camelot Shadow in Books
Jun 3, 2018
‘’I can either tell you my tale, or I can respond to your feeble witticisms. I cannot, in my mildly inebriated state, do both.’’
This is not your usual story related to King Arthur, Merlin and Camelot. This will, in fact, be quite different story and not only unusual, but one of a kind.
We go back in time when Queen Victoria was ruling over England. In a time when the author really liked to point out the fact that the characters are using trains. It was pointed out so much, that I had to do a bit of research to see if trains existed in that time. They did – apparently England had the oldest rail transport in the world. And Queen Victoria was one of the first royals to use that form of transport too.
Now, I am not even sure why I kept going on about trains… Back to the story…
The Camelot Shadow covers the story of Lord Alfred Fitzwilliam, a man whose wife is ill from an incurable illness. When an opportunity arises, giving him the chance and hope that he might save the life of his lover, he goes on a mission to find an object from the time when King Arthur was the ruler of England, and Merlin was his companion.
With a help from a group of people, Alfred digs the history and the stories of the past, only to discover that not everything he believed in was true, and not everyone that he trusted is his ally.
A story that reminded me of Dan Brown’s work. Quite similar in the sense of clues, history, what is a myth and what is a fact, though also quite distinctive, as it covers people’s characters so well, describing their personalities in a powerful way.
‘’Wealth. Status. Happiness. A perfect life. All built on an ephemeral foundation, an impossibility masking a lie that, if exposed, if openly acknowledged, would bring it all crashing down around our heads.’’
When a great disappointment comes around, and all hope is gone, people change, and people feel things. A person starts to wonder what they did wrong, what could they have done differently, what if… Alfred is one of the people where we will see his change over the chapters. For better or for worse, I’ll let you decide.
‘’It was Guinevere’s infidelity that brought down Arthur’s Camelot’’ – he said, wiping a trickle of Scotch from his chin with the back of his sleeve. ‘’It was God’s cruelty that brought down mine.’’
A book that explains good and evil in the unusual way. I thought I could explain good and evil, but sometimes my evil can do you good, and your good can do harm to everyone. And power… oh what people are capable to do for power…
‘’Power, Arthur had taught him, was not something to covet, but rather something to treat in the same manner one might handle a wild mastiff – with considerable respect, constant vigilance, and a trace of fear. ‘’
If you are a fan of history fiction, and stories about Arthur and Merlin, you would definitely want to dive in into this book and get lost into the world. And that is not the only thing that this book covers… It covers hope, faith, loss, love, good, evil, power, guilt and everything in between. Get ready for an adventure. One full of bravery and magic. And maybe… maybe some hope.
A huge thank you to the author, Sean Gibson, who was kind enough to give me an e-copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
This is not your usual story related to King Arthur, Merlin and Camelot. This will, in fact, be quite different story and not only unusual, but one of a kind.
We go back in time when Queen Victoria was ruling over England. In a time when the author really liked to point out the fact that the characters are using trains. It was pointed out so much, that I had to do a bit of research to see if trains existed in that time. They did – apparently England had the oldest rail transport in the world. And Queen Victoria was one of the first royals to use that form of transport too.
Now, I am not even sure why I kept going on about trains… Back to the story…
The Camelot Shadow covers the story of Lord Alfred Fitzwilliam, a man whose wife is ill from an incurable illness. When an opportunity arises, giving him the chance and hope that he might save the life of his lover, he goes on a mission to find an object from the time when King Arthur was the ruler of England, and Merlin was his companion.
With a help from a group of people, Alfred digs the history and the stories of the past, only to discover that not everything he believed in was true, and not everyone that he trusted is his ally.
A story that reminded me of Dan Brown’s work. Quite similar in the sense of clues, history, what is a myth and what is a fact, though also quite distinctive, as it covers people’s characters so well, describing their personalities in a powerful way.
‘’Wealth. Status. Happiness. A perfect life. All built on an ephemeral foundation, an impossibility masking a lie that, if exposed, if openly acknowledged, would bring it all crashing down around our heads.’’
When a great disappointment comes around, and all hope is gone, people change, and people feel things. A person starts to wonder what they did wrong, what could they have done differently, what if… Alfred is one of the people where we will see his change over the chapters. For better or for worse, I’ll let you decide.
‘’It was Guinevere’s infidelity that brought down Arthur’s Camelot’’ – he said, wiping a trickle of Scotch from his chin with the back of his sleeve. ‘’It was God’s cruelty that brought down mine.’’
A book that explains good and evil in the unusual way. I thought I could explain good and evil, but sometimes my evil can do you good, and your good can do harm to everyone. And power… oh what people are capable to do for power…
‘’Power, Arthur had taught him, was not something to covet, but rather something to treat in the same manner one might handle a wild mastiff – with considerable respect, constant vigilance, and a trace of fear. ‘’
If you are a fan of history fiction, and stories about Arthur and Merlin, you would definitely want to dive in into this book and get lost into the world. And that is not the only thing that this book covers… It covers hope, faith, loss, love, good, evil, power, guilt and everything in between. Get ready for an adventure. One full of bravery and magic. And maybe… maybe some hope.
A huge thank you to the author, Sean Gibson, who was kind enough to give me an e-copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated The Master and Margarita in Books
Aug 9, 2019
Worth a read? Yes. Worth a reread? Maybe not.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Master and Magarita: Mikhail Bulgakov
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Loki - Season 1 in TV
Jul 16, 2021 (Updated Jul 16, 2021)
I’ll stick with Loki’s original story-arc.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Loki, featuring the return of Tom Hiddleston to the MCU, has escaped with the tesseract, and is subsequently caught by the TVA. He agrees to help Owen Wilson’s Mobius track down a variant that is conveniently a version of himself. What ensues is a painful setup for Ironman with Magic… oh, sorry, Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.