Search
Search results
Becs (244 KP) rated Death Logs Out in Books
Aug 9, 2018
Great Thriller
I received a physical copy from Smith Publicity to review honestly and would like to thank them, along with the author for taking the time to send this out to me.
Firstly, the short chapters were what took half a star away. They work in this novel but the first couple was just a bit hard to get into and were kind of a bore. But, since I can't DNF a book, I kept trekking along regardless. I was met with an action-packed, page-turning thriller that kept me on my toes.
Religion, Nazi's, afterlife, artificial intelligence, and tons of action is littered throughout the novel. And boy, does it make it one heck of a book! This is the third installment of the Michael Nicholas series, but don't let that close the door for you on this novel. Be it a stand-alone or part of a series, this book is great either way.
The way that E. J. Simon writes, creates a sense of realism around Death Logs Out. And with the high -ranking Vatican villains, it makes you question and reevaluate the real world. Novel's like this, are the main reason why I enjoy reading Thrillers.
Firstly, the short chapters were what took half a star away. They work in this novel but the first couple was just a bit hard to get into and were kind of a bore. But, since I can't DNF a book, I kept trekking along regardless. I was met with an action-packed, page-turning thriller that kept me on my toes.
Religion, Nazi's, afterlife, artificial intelligence, and tons of action is littered throughout the novel. And boy, does it make it one heck of a book! This is the third installment of the Michael Nicholas series, but don't let that close the door for you on this novel. Be it a stand-alone or part of a series, this book is great either way.
The way that E. J. Simon writes, creates a sense of realism around Death Logs Out. And with the high -ranking Vatican villains, it makes you question and reevaluate the real world. Novel's like this, are the main reason why I enjoy reading Thrillers.
TerraBlizzard (18 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2019
The heritage to the orignal (5 more)
Sublime acting from a majority of unknowns in the industry.
"Spices" up and make it's own mark in the Disney world.
The addition and alterations.
One liners.
Disney parks hidden in the film.
True to the orignal but a stand alone.
A must watch for all ages and with that comes a range of open doors and closed comments.
If you have seen the orignal and loved it you might find it hard to get on with. But please if you do anything before watching this addition to the live action roster Disney are working hard on, go in with no expectations as if you thought this was the original.
If you haven't seen this before then prepare for bright colour, songs that make you tap your feet and a story driven hard by characters that develope through the film.
Guy Ritchie has done a great job with keeping the roots of this film in true disney essence with putting modern twist to make it a more enjoyable watch for adults who grew up with disney. Guy has a way of bringing darkness and edge to a film, like his work on Sherlock Holmes (Another must wacth) and with this edge comes gripping depth to the story. So much so I was desperate for a toilet break but could not leave my seat as I was worried I'd miss a key part.
With the addition of 2 relative unknown leads in a well loved story was a marvellous move on the casting department. Mena Mossuod and Naomi Scott play brilliant parts and fit right into characters with the addittion of Will Smith a strong and dependable actor who you know always does a good job makes the trio stand out.
With the addition of songs and changes of genre to songs. Everything works and works well. "Speechless" a welcomed addition to the set list that empowers girls and boys to stand up and speek out agiasnt those that push them down and genre swap of "Friend like me".
For instance my favourite Disney song is "Friend like me" sung by the genie or genie's if you "wish" the hard hitting jazz number that breaks the bollywood theme. In the orignal and west end the song is similar in both. Robbin Williams and Trevor Dion Nicholas make this song their own keeping to what the disney song writter wanted and to what their good at. HOWEVER this song I don't think could ever work for Will Smith as a jazz number but by god he pulled it off as a R&B. Agiasnt popular oppion Nicholas version Is the one I love follower by both Robbins and Smith versions.
If you have ever been to a disney park you know that they believe in the story's their telling, the work and detail of everything from sets, Background details, outfits and even the god dam smells of the sweets they sell or the rides they have and even the streets you walk on. They work hard and they do it well (their not perfect but they give it a heck of a running start to get close) The same goes for their movies.
This movie wasn't a disappointment or better film for me as I don't compare it to the original.
It is a film that is done well and played well and makes you believe in it. As what all good story telling needs to do to those who watch and listen.
If you have seen the orignal and loved it you might find it hard to get on with. But please if you do anything before watching this addition to the live action roster Disney are working hard on, go in with no expectations as if you thought this was the original.
If you haven't seen this before then prepare for bright colour, songs that make you tap your feet and a story driven hard by characters that develope through the film.
Guy Ritchie has done a great job with keeping the roots of this film in true disney essence with putting modern twist to make it a more enjoyable watch for adults who grew up with disney. Guy has a way of bringing darkness and edge to a film, like his work on Sherlock Holmes (Another must wacth) and with this edge comes gripping depth to the story. So much so I was desperate for a toilet break but could not leave my seat as I was worried I'd miss a key part.
With the addition of 2 relative unknown leads in a well loved story was a marvellous move on the casting department. Mena Mossuod and Naomi Scott play brilliant parts and fit right into characters with the addittion of Will Smith a strong and dependable actor who you know always does a good job makes the trio stand out.
With the addition of songs and changes of genre to songs. Everything works and works well. "Speechless" a welcomed addition to the set list that empowers girls and boys to stand up and speek out agiasnt those that push them down and genre swap of "Friend like me".
For instance my favourite Disney song is "Friend like me" sung by the genie or genie's if you "wish" the hard hitting jazz number that breaks the bollywood theme. In the orignal and west end the song is similar in both. Robbin Williams and Trevor Dion Nicholas make this song their own keeping to what the disney song writter wanted and to what their good at. HOWEVER this song I don't think could ever work for Will Smith as a jazz number but by god he pulled it off as a R&B. Agiasnt popular oppion Nicholas version Is the one I love follower by both Robbins and Smith versions.
If you have ever been to a disney park you know that they believe in the story's their telling, the work and detail of everything from sets, Background details, outfits and even the god dam smells of the sweets they sell or the rides they have and even the streets you walk on. They work hard and they do it well (their not perfect but they give it a heck of a running start to get close) The same goes for their movies.
This movie wasn't a disappointment or better film for me as I don't compare it to the original.
It is a film that is done well and played well and makes you believe in it. As what all good story telling needs to do to those who watch and listen.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal ‘invasion’ of British film and television programming. Like the British ‘music invasion’ some 60 years ago we just can’t seem to get enough of it. Today’s film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy ‘The Lady In The Van’. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, ‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
JT (287 KP) rated Paranormal Activity 3 (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
If it’s not broke, then don’t fix it. Seems a pretty good mantra and one that new directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman have stuck to.
The pair are behind the camera for the third terrifying instalment of the ever-popular franchise that proves you don’t need a massive budget to make a shit load of money. The film had the biggest opening weekend of any other horror film grossing $54m, and at the same time satisfying those that love it when things go bump in the night.
We’re still with Katie and Kristi, the sisters who were on the wrong end of a pissed off entity for the original and the sequel, or should we say prequel in this case. This time, after a brief cameo from the older girls Katie Featherston and Sprague Grayden, we are transported back to 1988 and the home of VHS, with the siblings now much younger.
The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
Things start to turn sinister from the outset after Dennis (Nicholas Smith), a wedding videographer discovers a figure silhouetted on camera. Desperate to discover what it is, and against the wishes of his partner Julie (Lauren Bittner), he sets up the good old handheld cameras in the bedrooms hoping for it to reappear, it doesn’t take long.
The focus on this is the relationship that Kristi has with the invisible entity who she has aptly named Toby and runs about playfully with until it is clear that Toby gets slightly annoyed when things don’t go his way. The film is full of jumps and jolts that will have you leaping out of your seat or ducking down behind it.
From the old fashioned white-sheeted ghost to making you never want to see a Teddy Ruxpin again as long as you live. Joost and Schulman find new and unique ways to scare the living daylights out of you. To reveal too much more would, of course, ruin it, but suffice to say they are all brilliantly executed.
Being 1988 CCTV was all but redundant for the most part and perhaps one of the biggest payoffs was Dennis’s makeshift camera that was set up in the living room downstairs. Made out of a desk fan the camera pans slowly from one end of the room to the other and is very much the main focus for several horrific scenes, including a homage to the exploding cupboards in PA2.
The film is also injected with a strong sense of light-heartedness and humour, used almost like a comforter that the audience will embrace, that is until Joost and Schulman smack them across the face with another scare. The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
It’s a reveal that may or may not is appreciated, but one thing is for sure you’ll have a great time getting there.
One important thing to note is that the trailer below contains scenes that aren’t included in the film at all, I for one am happy with this as it means that cinema goers can still go in fresh. Although you do feel a little cheated that you missed something important.
The pair are behind the camera for the third terrifying instalment of the ever-popular franchise that proves you don’t need a massive budget to make a shit load of money. The film had the biggest opening weekend of any other horror film grossing $54m, and at the same time satisfying those that love it when things go bump in the night.
We’re still with Katie and Kristi, the sisters who were on the wrong end of a pissed off entity for the original and the sequel, or should we say prequel in this case. This time, after a brief cameo from the older girls Katie Featherston and Sprague Grayden, we are transported back to 1988 and the home of VHS, with the siblings now much younger.
The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
Things start to turn sinister from the outset after Dennis (Nicholas Smith), a wedding videographer discovers a figure silhouetted on camera. Desperate to discover what it is, and against the wishes of his partner Julie (Lauren Bittner), he sets up the good old handheld cameras in the bedrooms hoping for it to reappear, it doesn’t take long.
The focus on this is the relationship that Kristi has with the invisible entity who she has aptly named Toby and runs about playfully with until it is clear that Toby gets slightly annoyed when things don’t go his way. The film is full of jumps and jolts that will have you leaping out of your seat or ducking down behind it.
From the old fashioned white-sheeted ghost to making you never want to see a Teddy Ruxpin again as long as you live. Joost and Schulman find new and unique ways to scare the living daylights out of you. To reveal too much more would, of course, ruin it, but suffice to say they are all brilliantly executed.
Being 1988 CCTV was all but redundant for the most part and perhaps one of the biggest payoffs was Dennis’s makeshift camera that was set up in the living room downstairs. Made out of a desk fan the camera pans slowly from one end of the room to the other and is very much the main focus for several horrific scenes, including a homage to the exploding cupboards in PA2.
The film is also injected with a strong sense of light-heartedness and humour, used almost like a comforter that the audience will embrace, that is until Joost and Schulman smack them across the face with another scare. The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
It’s a reveal that may or may not is appreciated, but one thing is for sure you’ll have a great time getting there.
One important thing to note is that the trailer below contains scenes that aren’t included in the film at all, I for one am happy with this as it means that cinema goers can still go in fresh. Although you do feel a little cheated that you missed something important.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated The Book of Kings in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – The Book of Kings Has a Few Gems and a Few Warts
Contains spoilers, click to show
Unlike other short story anthologies I could mention, this one wasn’t mostly horrible. Instead, the stories inside run the gamut from stupid to brilliant and from annoying to nothing special to fun and memorable. A little something for everyone, then.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.