Search
Search results
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Goddess of Yesterday in Books
Jan 18, 2018
First off, I should say that I absolutely love Greek mythology. I do not consider myself sufficiently schooled in the subject, but it is a passion of mine. I do not, however, like reading about the Trojan War. Therefore, I was a bit iffy when I request this book from book swap on goodreads.com . After reading it, I was pleased that the novel barely touched on the war.
There are so many thing that I love about this book that I dont know if I can even fit it all into one review. I normally do not like narratives, but I think this novel wouldnt have been the same if it hadnt been. When it first starts, the main character, Anaxandra, is only 5 years old and , thus, narrates through the eyes of a five year old (who knows how to express herself very well ). As the story progresses and Anaxandra grows older, the way she thinks and talks also evolves. You almost feel as if you grow with her, learning the things that she does and experiencing what she does with such clarity.
From page one, the plot unfolds, another thing I adore about any book. There is no excessive detail or long drawn out explanations of anything. Cooney wastes no time with excessive writing when she can sufficiently say it in a few sentences. Something I thought was very realistic considering the narrator. It almost reads like a stream on consciousness. It isnt staccato and rough like Hemingways writing, reading smoothing while still sounding like what is going through a young girl's mind during the time.
The plot actually wasnt too complicated. A young girl is given to a king as a companion for his daughter. Their village is sacked when she is older and she lies to Menalaus to save herself and thus becomes a companion for his young daughter. Helen meets Paris, and the rest is history. It sounds simple enough, but every page had something on it that progressed the storyline. It seemed that something was always happening.
Cooney's Helen of Troy had me clutching my book firmly in my claws, trying not to through it across the room in rage. I always picture Helen of Troy as a narcisstic woman who should have been put in her place. Cooney portrayed just that: a woman so caught in her own supposed birthright, beauty, and self bestowed power that, at time, Helen acted as if she was a goddess herself. She had accepted her life but was bored with it. It wasn't until someone as equally gorgeous and captivating as her came along, Paris, did she gain the courage to finally defy her husband.
I equally agreed with Cooney's portrayal of Paris. The young prince, who was also known to be quite the stud of his time, just bragged about his conquests and skills, of which, in truth, he had none.
What is not to love about two people wrapped up in themselves actually falling in love with each other? I wondered if they were only in love with the idea of them having a mate that compared to their unsurpassable looks.
All in all, there were far to many things in this novel that made me place it back on my shelf instead of donating it once I had finished. It lacks a certain maturity that I had grown use to from the other novels I have been reading as of late, but considering it is a young adult novel, I think Cooney can be forgiven for such a triviality.
If you like fiction about ancient Greece and Greek Mythology, I whole-heartedly recommend this little gem.
There are so many thing that I love about this book that I dont know if I can even fit it all into one review. I normally do not like narratives, but I think this novel wouldnt have been the same if it hadnt been. When it first starts, the main character, Anaxandra, is only 5 years old and , thus, narrates through the eyes of a five year old (who knows how to express herself very well ). As the story progresses and Anaxandra grows older, the way she thinks and talks also evolves. You almost feel as if you grow with her, learning the things that she does and experiencing what she does with such clarity.
From page one, the plot unfolds, another thing I adore about any book. There is no excessive detail or long drawn out explanations of anything. Cooney wastes no time with excessive writing when she can sufficiently say it in a few sentences. Something I thought was very realistic considering the narrator. It almost reads like a stream on consciousness. It isnt staccato and rough like Hemingways writing, reading smoothing while still sounding like what is going through a young girl's mind during the time.
The plot actually wasnt too complicated. A young girl is given to a king as a companion for his daughter. Their village is sacked when she is older and she lies to Menalaus to save herself and thus becomes a companion for his young daughter. Helen meets Paris, and the rest is history. It sounds simple enough, but every page had something on it that progressed the storyline. It seemed that something was always happening.
Cooney's Helen of Troy had me clutching my book firmly in my claws, trying not to through it across the room in rage. I always picture Helen of Troy as a narcisstic woman who should have been put in her place. Cooney portrayed just that: a woman so caught in her own supposed birthright, beauty, and self bestowed power that, at time, Helen acted as if she was a goddess herself. She had accepted her life but was bored with it. It wasn't until someone as equally gorgeous and captivating as her came along, Paris, did she gain the courage to finally defy her husband.
I equally agreed with Cooney's portrayal of Paris. The young prince, who was also known to be quite the stud of his time, just bragged about his conquests and skills, of which, in truth, he had none.
What is not to love about two people wrapped up in themselves actually falling in love with each other? I wondered if they were only in love with the idea of them having a mate that compared to their unsurpassable looks.
All in all, there were far to many things in this novel that made me place it back on my shelf instead of donating it once I had finished. It lacks a certain maturity that I had grown use to from the other novels I have been reading as of late, but considering it is a young adult novel, I think Cooney can be forgiven for such a triviality.
If you like fiction about ancient Greece and Greek Mythology, I whole-heartedly recommend this little gem.
Becca Major (96 KP) rated The Nutcracker Prince (1990) in Movies
Jan 20, 2018
Decent writing (3 more)
Good animation
Semi-active heroine
Loyal to the book
Dance sequence, especially the Pas de Deux (3 more)
Music placement
Weak and confusing ending
Marie
The Nutcracker Prince
Contains spoilers, click to show
Summary:
The Nutcracker Prince is an enjoyable little children's movie that is a strange mashup of the novel by E.T.A. Hoffman and the popular ballet. The story is fairly simple and follows Clara as she interacts with her family at the yearly Christmas party, where she and her siblings receive the titular Nutcracker from their Uncle Drosselmeyer, as well as a golden castle. He then proceeds to tell Clara about the Nutcracker’s backstory. Then Fritz, Clara’s little brother, breaks the Nutcracker and she scolds him.
Later that night, the Mouse King attacks, attempting to kill the Nutcracker, and Clara watches the toys do battle with the Mouse King’s army. Clara ends up tripping and hurting herself, which makes her bedridden. During this time, Fritz brings her a partially eaten box of chocolates, which she puts in her nightstand drawer. Later that night, the Mouse King approaches her and threatens her. Clara offers him the box of chocolates and when he hops in the drawer to eat them, she shuts him in. She runs downstairs to protect the Nutcracker, which transitions to the second attack of the Mouse King and his army. The toys and mice battle, and eventually the Nutcracker runs the Mouse King through (off-screen of course), and the day is won.
The Nutcracker invites Clara to visit the Land of the Dolls. She does and is impressed by the beauty around her, and the Nutcracker asks her to stay and become his Queen. She turns him down, for good reasons, and everyone in the Land of the Dolls starts to turn back into lifeless objects. Then, to make everything weirder, the “dead” Mouse King shows up for one more hurrah and fights with Clara. He ends up falling over the balcony and dying. Clara returns home via “It was just a dream,” freaks out, runs to her Uncle Drosselmeyer’s house, and meets his nephew, who looks exactly like the Nutcracker, but not really.
Overall:
When all is said and done, I would have to say that I like the beginning of the movie a lot more than the end. The rules for how the magic works make sense, and the characters are pretty well defined. Clara is competitive with her siblings and thinks they are weird, and she is basically about as active as the material allows her to be. The Nutcracker himself is pretty bland and soft-spoken in comparison, but he does try his best with the situation he’s in, so I can’t dislike him. The Mouse King is somewhat threatening, if one dimensional. There isn’t much to say about the side characters. Clara’s siblings are fine, as are most of the side characters. With the exception of Marie, none of them are particularly annoying.
The music is fine, if occasionally distracting. It is Tschaikowsky, after all.
The animation is pretty good for a direct to VHS movie. The run-cycles are pretty goofy, but it flows and has detail.
I like the obvious nods to the aspects of the book that the writers changed, such as naming the new doll Marie. As someone who read the book recently, it was nice to know that they cared about the material they were adapting.
In the end, I feel that considering the movie is twenty-eight years old, it holds up pretty good. I would definitely watch it again and probably share it with the students in my class, or with my nephew.
The Nutcracker Prince is an enjoyable little children's movie that is a strange mashup of the novel by E.T.A. Hoffman and the popular ballet. The story is fairly simple and follows Clara as she interacts with her family at the yearly Christmas party, where she and her siblings receive the titular Nutcracker from their Uncle Drosselmeyer, as well as a golden castle. He then proceeds to tell Clara about the Nutcracker’s backstory. Then Fritz, Clara’s little brother, breaks the Nutcracker and she scolds him.
Later that night, the Mouse King attacks, attempting to kill the Nutcracker, and Clara watches the toys do battle with the Mouse King’s army. Clara ends up tripping and hurting herself, which makes her bedridden. During this time, Fritz brings her a partially eaten box of chocolates, which she puts in her nightstand drawer. Later that night, the Mouse King approaches her and threatens her. Clara offers him the box of chocolates and when he hops in the drawer to eat them, she shuts him in. She runs downstairs to protect the Nutcracker, which transitions to the second attack of the Mouse King and his army. The toys and mice battle, and eventually the Nutcracker runs the Mouse King through (off-screen of course), and the day is won.
The Nutcracker invites Clara to visit the Land of the Dolls. She does and is impressed by the beauty around her, and the Nutcracker asks her to stay and become his Queen. She turns him down, for good reasons, and everyone in the Land of the Dolls starts to turn back into lifeless objects. Then, to make everything weirder, the “dead” Mouse King shows up for one more hurrah and fights with Clara. He ends up falling over the balcony and dying. Clara returns home via “It was just a dream,” freaks out, runs to her Uncle Drosselmeyer’s house, and meets his nephew, who looks exactly like the Nutcracker, but not really.
Overall:
When all is said and done, I would have to say that I like the beginning of the movie a lot more than the end. The rules for how the magic works make sense, and the characters are pretty well defined. Clara is competitive with her siblings and thinks they are weird, and she is basically about as active as the material allows her to be. The Nutcracker himself is pretty bland and soft-spoken in comparison, but he does try his best with the situation he’s in, so I can’t dislike him. The Mouse King is somewhat threatening, if one dimensional. There isn’t much to say about the side characters. Clara’s siblings are fine, as are most of the side characters. With the exception of Marie, none of them are particularly annoying.
The music is fine, if occasionally distracting. It is Tschaikowsky, after all.
The animation is pretty good for a direct to VHS movie. The run-cycles are pretty goofy, but it flows and has detail.
I like the obvious nods to the aspects of the book that the writers changed, such as naming the new doll Marie. As someone who read the book recently, it was nice to know that they cared about the material they were adapting.
In the end, I feel that considering the movie is twenty-eight years old, it holds up pretty good. I would definitely watch it again and probably share it with the students in my class, or with my nephew.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Lies She Told in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Liza is a struggling writer given an ultimatum by her editor: write a thriller for me in a month. It's been ages since Liza was on the bestseller list (truly, only her first novel was a real success). Meanwhile, she's a mess of fertility drugs and hormones, as she and her lawyer husband, David, are trying to start a family--and getting nowhere. Even worse, David's best friend and business partner, Nick, has been missing for over a month. David is increasingly frantic and distracted, and the police have no leads. So Liza pours her heart and soul into the story of Beth, a new mom who suspects her own lawyer husband of cheating on her. Beth catches him the act and makes a split-second decision that will change their lives forever. As Liza continues to write, the lines between fact and fiction become increasingly blurred.
I was excited to finally pick this one up, as so many of my friends had enjoyed it, but alas, I'm going to be the killjoy here <i>who stands against the popular wave of public opinion.</i> Please note that most people really loved this book and who knows, maybe I'm just getting cranky in my old age. ;) Or maybe I got too caught up in all the hype.
Either way, this one was a let down for me. <i> The clues left along in the story for the reader stand out as huge glaring red flags, basically just screaming the plot twists out</i>. Nothing came as a surprise, I had the entire thing worked out in about the first 15 minutes. Now, I won't lie, this is still an incredibly readable book - <i>it's a fast read</i> for sure. You immediately realize that Liza is an unreliable narrator and a ticking time bomb. I never really warmed to her, but she's somewhat fascinating in trying to figure out what she's up to and what's truly happening.
I've seen some complaints about it being hard to figure out what chapters were Liza's and which were Beth's--I didn't have that problem. They alternate and in my version, Liza's were marked. I occasionally had to remind myself who had which backstory, but I believe that was part of the idea--of Liza blurring the reality around her. And, truly, it was a great idea in concept.
Unfortunately, I found both women to be somewhat frustrating and didn't really buy all of their actions or relationships. Liza's quick attachment to Trevor, for instance, or some of Beth's bizarre decisions. That made it harder to root for them. And, again, absolutely nothing that occurred was a surprise. That was my biggest issue. I want my thriller to surprise me, but none of the twists were shocking whatsoever, right up to the end. Sigh.
Still, as I said, it's an oddly compelling read with the blurred parallels between Liza and Beth and you "wondering" what happened to Nick. At the end, I pondered for a moment whether it was brilliant or awful, but I just couldn't enjoy something I found so predictable, even if it was a page-turner at times. But, I'm certainly in the minority here, so take my review with a grain of salt!
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review. It's available everywhere as of 09/12/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
I was excited to finally pick this one up, as so many of my friends had enjoyed it, but alas, I'm going to be the killjoy here <i>who stands against the popular wave of public opinion.</i> Please note that most people really loved this book and who knows, maybe I'm just getting cranky in my old age. ;) Or maybe I got too caught up in all the hype.
Either way, this one was a let down for me. <i> The clues left along in the story for the reader stand out as huge glaring red flags, basically just screaming the plot twists out</i>. Nothing came as a surprise, I had the entire thing worked out in about the first 15 minutes. Now, I won't lie, this is still an incredibly readable book - <i>it's a fast read</i> for sure. You immediately realize that Liza is an unreliable narrator and a ticking time bomb. I never really warmed to her, but she's somewhat fascinating in trying to figure out what she's up to and what's truly happening.
I've seen some complaints about it being hard to figure out what chapters were Liza's and which were Beth's--I didn't have that problem. They alternate and in my version, Liza's were marked. I occasionally had to remind myself who had which backstory, but I believe that was part of the idea--of Liza blurring the reality around her. And, truly, it was a great idea in concept.
Unfortunately, I found both women to be somewhat frustrating and didn't really buy all of their actions or relationships. Liza's quick attachment to Trevor, for instance, or some of Beth's bizarre decisions. That made it harder to root for them. And, again, absolutely nothing that occurred was a surprise. That was my biggest issue. I want my thriller to surprise me, but none of the twists were shocking whatsoever, right up to the end. Sigh.
Still, as I said, it's an oddly compelling read with the blurred parallels between Liza and Beth and you "wondering" what happened to Nick. At the end, I pondered for a moment whether it was brilliant or awful, but I just couldn't enjoy something I found so predictable, even if it was a page-turner at times. But, I'm certainly in the minority here, so take my review with a grain of salt!
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review. It's available everywhere as of 09/12/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Animators in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Sharon Kisses (yep, that's her real name) and Mel Vaught meet in college in upstate New York. Sharon is a reserved, talented girl from a rural Kentucky town. Mel is a out, tough, lesbian from Florida -- all bravado hiding a softer interior. The two form a fast friendship, bonding quickly over their art and their family histories: both come from dysfunctional families who have formed the girls into what they are today. Mel and Sharon pour this into their art, and they become talented animation partners, with their first movie showing a raw, truthful look at Mel's childhood and her mother, a rough woman who ended up in jail. The two are on the cusp of success -- tours, awards, artistic grants. But success comes with an edge: Mel starts drinking and turning to drugs, while Sharon doubts herself and her role in this brilliant duo. Suddenly, however, none of that matters when tragedy strikes the pair, and everything they've known changes in an instant.
This book is insane and amazing. I honestly had no idea what it was about when I started to read it; I surely had read the ARC blurb when I chose it, but had forgotten by the time I began, and the cover art seems to indicate a light-hearted tale about movies and animation. It is not. This is a powerful, gut-wrenching novel that will drag you into its story and characters and eventually spit you out, exhilarated and exhausted. There was so much about this novel I loved and related to: the fast friendship of two girls in college; an actual lead lesbian character (but whose lesbianism wasn't her only defining aspect - how refreshing); Sharon and her doubts and insecurities - the way she feels as if she's disappearing into herself in her thirties; the way Whitaker so easily captured growing up in a rural town (Sharon's Kentucky hometown)... I immediately identified with both characters, although Sharon is our protagonist, and the one telling us our story.
I won't lie to you: this book will make you feel uncomfortable. It's not a fun read, or really even a pleasant one. It's not a "feel good novel." It hurts--physically hurts--to read this book. Some of the novel is uneven, and it jumps around a bit. This is Whitaker's first novel, and I think she's only going to get more amazing as she goes, because you can look past this, and see so much power and force in this book. It's raw. It's the story of a friendship, and it's told so beautifully that you are completely drawn into Mel and Sharon's world. When you read this book, there is really nothing else going on in your life but this novel. Mel and Sharon are real, you love them, and you can see them in your mind. (I saw Mel as Kate McKinnon, despite the references to Lori Petty.) The storyline, for me, was unexpected, and, as I said, jumped a bit, but it worked. I had one issue with the end (a bit of a cliche about straight/lesbian friendship, but I won't go into it much, for spoiler reasons), but otherwise, found this novel to be energetic and forceful. It's dark, it's an ode to art and friendship and life, it's deep - I really have no words. It will take you to an exposed place inside of yourself, but you'll be glad it did.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 1/31/2017.
This book is insane and amazing. I honestly had no idea what it was about when I started to read it; I surely had read the ARC blurb when I chose it, but had forgotten by the time I began, and the cover art seems to indicate a light-hearted tale about movies and animation. It is not. This is a powerful, gut-wrenching novel that will drag you into its story and characters and eventually spit you out, exhilarated and exhausted. There was so much about this novel I loved and related to: the fast friendship of two girls in college; an actual lead lesbian character (but whose lesbianism wasn't her only defining aspect - how refreshing); Sharon and her doubts and insecurities - the way she feels as if she's disappearing into herself in her thirties; the way Whitaker so easily captured growing up in a rural town (Sharon's Kentucky hometown)... I immediately identified with both characters, although Sharon is our protagonist, and the one telling us our story.
I won't lie to you: this book will make you feel uncomfortable. It's not a fun read, or really even a pleasant one. It's not a "feel good novel." It hurts--physically hurts--to read this book. Some of the novel is uneven, and it jumps around a bit. This is Whitaker's first novel, and I think she's only going to get more amazing as she goes, because you can look past this, and see so much power and force in this book. It's raw. It's the story of a friendship, and it's told so beautifully that you are completely drawn into Mel and Sharon's world. When you read this book, there is really nothing else going on in your life but this novel. Mel and Sharon are real, you love them, and you can see them in your mind. (I saw Mel as Kate McKinnon, despite the references to Lori Petty.) The storyline, for me, was unexpected, and, as I said, jumped a bit, but it worked. I had one issue with the end (a bit of a cliche about straight/lesbian friendship, but I won't go into it much, for spoiler reasons), but otherwise, found this novel to be energetic and forceful. It's dark, it's an ode to art and friendship and life, it's deep - I really have no words. It will take you to an exposed place inside of yourself, but you'll be glad it did.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 1/31/2017.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated When Marnie Was There (2015) in Movies
Apr 2, 2018
So Much Potential...
When Anna's mom sends her to stay with her aunt for the summer, Anna develops a strong friendship with Marnie, a girl that only Anna seems to know.
Acting: 9
Beginning: 1
Gets off to a bland start at best. I found myself tuning out very quickly. I was looking for a reason to get into it but it never grabbed me.
Characters: 8
You immediately sympathize with Anna. She's an introvert with seemingly no place in the world. To make matters worse, she's prone to panic attacks. From the very beginning, she's a character you wish you could reach out to and protect. Learning her history and the source of her pain is the best part of the film. There were a few other characters that were memorable as well, but none so much as Anna.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Another strong suit of the film. Animations were crisp with strong attention to detail. One scene inside of an abandoned silo particularly stands out. The blend of darkness and destructive winds really place you in the moment and breathe life into a film that was otherwise dull.
Conflict: 4
Genre: 8
The film isn't a favorite by any means and won't hold up against some of my other animated classics that I love. HOWEVER, I appreciate the animation style of the film and I also respected that it attempted to try something different. Even though it was a total miss, I give it the proper credit for daring to be different and take a chance.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
The word "snail" comes to mind here. A huge mistake was made here in merely focusing on the day-to-day of Anna. There wasn't a lot of conflict that dictated the pace. I was waiting for something to happen, ANYTHING. Before I knew it, I was begging for it to be over. As the story progresses there is no real momentum building that can give you a reason to keep your attention solely on the film.
Plot: 0
Unique or not, I had a hard time buying it in its entirety. Had this been a real situation, Anna probably would have been put in a nut house 10 minutes into the film. She was given an awful lot of freedom for someone known to not be adjusted to the world. That didn't make sense to me, neither did the fact that Anna couldn't somehow piece the whole situation together a little bit faster. Maybe the whole idea was that she couldn't piece things together because she didn't want to? I don't know. What I do know is that sometimes even the best intentions can yield some bad results. Perfect example.
Resolution: 10
Best part of the film and, no, I'm not being sarcastic. You essentially find out the mystery behind everything going on and I have to say it's a really nice payoff. Extremely touching, it makes the film 100 times better than what it could have been. I won't give anything away but it resolves around finding your place in life and appreciating who you are. While I loved it, it infuriated me at the same time. WHY COULDN'T THE REST OF THE FILM BE LIKE THIS???
Overall: 57
I have seen a number of films that get off to a great start and fizzle out at the end. When Marnie Was There does the opposite and the feeling it leaves you with ends up being far worse. Had the rest of the film hit home like the ending, this would have been a wonderful classic.
Acting: 9
Beginning: 1
Gets off to a bland start at best. I found myself tuning out very quickly. I was looking for a reason to get into it but it never grabbed me.
Characters: 8
You immediately sympathize with Anna. She's an introvert with seemingly no place in the world. To make matters worse, she's prone to panic attacks. From the very beginning, she's a character you wish you could reach out to and protect. Learning her history and the source of her pain is the best part of the film. There were a few other characters that were memorable as well, but none so much as Anna.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Another strong suit of the film. Animations were crisp with strong attention to detail. One scene inside of an abandoned silo particularly stands out. The blend of darkness and destructive winds really place you in the moment and breathe life into a film that was otherwise dull.
Conflict: 4
Genre: 8
The film isn't a favorite by any means and won't hold up against some of my other animated classics that I love. HOWEVER, I appreciate the animation style of the film and I also respected that it attempted to try something different. Even though it was a total miss, I give it the proper credit for daring to be different and take a chance.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
The word "snail" comes to mind here. A huge mistake was made here in merely focusing on the day-to-day of Anna. There wasn't a lot of conflict that dictated the pace. I was waiting for something to happen, ANYTHING. Before I knew it, I was begging for it to be over. As the story progresses there is no real momentum building that can give you a reason to keep your attention solely on the film.
Plot: 0
Unique or not, I had a hard time buying it in its entirety. Had this been a real situation, Anna probably would have been put in a nut house 10 minutes into the film. She was given an awful lot of freedom for someone known to not be adjusted to the world. That didn't make sense to me, neither did the fact that Anna couldn't somehow piece the whole situation together a little bit faster. Maybe the whole idea was that she couldn't piece things together because she didn't want to? I don't know. What I do know is that sometimes even the best intentions can yield some bad results. Perfect example.
Resolution: 10
Best part of the film and, no, I'm not being sarcastic. You essentially find out the mystery behind everything going on and I have to say it's a really nice payoff. Extremely touching, it makes the film 100 times better than what it could have been. I won't give anything away but it resolves around finding your place in life and appreciating who you are. While I loved it, it infuriated me at the same time. WHY COULDN'T THE REST OF THE FILM BE LIKE THIS???
Overall: 57
I have seen a number of films that get off to a great start and fizzle out at the end. When Marnie Was There does the opposite and the feeling it leaves you with ends up being far worse. Had the rest of the film hit home like the ending, this would have been a wonderful classic.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Annihilation (2018) in Movies
Feb 24, 2018
Just didn't work for me
I like "Intelligent Science Fiction". You know, like Alex Garland's other Directorial effort 2014's EX MACHINA or Jeff Nichols’ involving 2016 film MIDNIGHT SPECIAL. These are the types of films that uses the backdrop of Science Fiction to delve deeper into character, concepts or ideas, leaving time for the audience to take it all in and to really think about what is being shown on the screen and to wrestle with the concepts brought forth. So, I was really excited when I found out the Garland would be helming a film of the first book in Jeff VanderMeer's SOUTHERN REACH trilogy, ANNIHILATION - a trippy sci-fi book series about an alien presence that starts tearing away at the very fabric of human existence. I was convinced that this marriage of source material and filmmaker would create another cinematic gem.
Boy, was I wrong.
ANNIHILATION fails in all the ways that these types of films could fail. It is self-indulgent, favors style over substance, mood over momentum and has long, long, loooong scenes of dialogue (or non-dialogue) that is supposed to convey a sense of dread and, for me, just made me want to yell at the screen "get on with it!"
ANNIHILATION tells the story of a group of women who comprise the 12th group of explorers entering "the shimmer" - an unknown phenomenon in a remote part of the US that is growing and will soon start engulfing populated areas. None of the other groups have returned (save for 1 soldier). This 12th group, led by the mysterious Dr. Ventres, tries to get at the heart of what the shimmer is and succeed where others failed. Once inside "the shimmer" the group must fight with their own nightmares and what makes them human.
Sounds like a really good premise for an intelligent Sci-Fi film doesn't it? Unfortunately, Director and Writer Garland is more interested in the sights, sounds and moods of "the shimmer" and fails to create any interesting characters - or circumstances - for the audience to follow.
Natalie Portman stars as Lena - a biologist (and former military) who's husband (the great Oscar Isaac) is the lone returning solider (though not all of him, mentally, has returned). The pairing of these two strong, interesting actors should have been enough to propel this film forward, but all they do is stare at each other and "not say" anything. They look at each other like something is wrong, but the never say or do anything. Compounding things is the weird portrayal of the weird Dr. Ventres by Jennifer Jason Leigh - an actress not known from shying away from weird. Her portrayal would have worked, I think, if she had some "normal" folks to play against - or if her character had some sort of climax, but she doesn't, she just sort of peters out. Joining these two are Tessa Thompson (losing the goodwill she earned in THOR:RAGNAROK) as a physicist that "has secrets" and Gina Rodriguez (channelling her inner Michelle Rodriguez) as a gung-ho "kick-ass" paramedic (you can guess how that is going to turn out). Only Tuva Novotny as scientist Cass Sheppard has anything approaching an interesting character, but she is on all too briefly.
Also wasted in this film is Benedict Wong (DOCTOR STRANGE) as the "Basil Exposition" of this film (explaining things to the audience) and David Gyasi (INTERSTELLAR) as a pseudo-love interest for Lena.
Maybe I'm just not "artsy" enough to enjoy this. If you are and you enjoy this, let me know what I missed. As it is, I have an early, leading contender for "Worst Film of 2018".
In the meantime, I'm going to rewatch EX MACHINA or MIDNIGHT SPECIAL, two intelligent Science Fiction films that work.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Boy, was I wrong.
ANNIHILATION fails in all the ways that these types of films could fail. It is self-indulgent, favors style over substance, mood over momentum and has long, long, loooong scenes of dialogue (or non-dialogue) that is supposed to convey a sense of dread and, for me, just made me want to yell at the screen "get on with it!"
ANNIHILATION tells the story of a group of women who comprise the 12th group of explorers entering "the shimmer" - an unknown phenomenon in a remote part of the US that is growing and will soon start engulfing populated areas. None of the other groups have returned (save for 1 soldier). This 12th group, led by the mysterious Dr. Ventres, tries to get at the heart of what the shimmer is and succeed where others failed. Once inside "the shimmer" the group must fight with their own nightmares and what makes them human.
Sounds like a really good premise for an intelligent Sci-Fi film doesn't it? Unfortunately, Director and Writer Garland is more interested in the sights, sounds and moods of "the shimmer" and fails to create any interesting characters - or circumstances - for the audience to follow.
Natalie Portman stars as Lena - a biologist (and former military) who's husband (the great Oscar Isaac) is the lone returning solider (though not all of him, mentally, has returned). The pairing of these two strong, interesting actors should have been enough to propel this film forward, but all they do is stare at each other and "not say" anything. They look at each other like something is wrong, but the never say or do anything. Compounding things is the weird portrayal of the weird Dr. Ventres by Jennifer Jason Leigh - an actress not known from shying away from weird. Her portrayal would have worked, I think, if she had some "normal" folks to play against - or if her character had some sort of climax, but she doesn't, she just sort of peters out. Joining these two are Tessa Thompson (losing the goodwill she earned in THOR:RAGNAROK) as a physicist that "has secrets" and Gina Rodriguez (channelling her inner Michelle Rodriguez) as a gung-ho "kick-ass" paramedic (you can guess how that is going to turn out). Only Tuva Novotny as scientist Cass Sheppard has anything approaching an interesting character, but she is on all too briefly.
Also wasted in this film is Benedict Wong (DOCTOR STRANGE) as the "Basil Exposition" of this film (explaining things to the audience) and David Gyasi (INTERSTELLAR) as a pseudo-love interest for Lena.
Maybe I'm just not "artsy" enough to enjoy this. If you are and you enjoy this, let me know what I missed. As it is, I have an early, leading contender for "Worst Film of 2018".
In the meantime, I'm going to rewatch EX MACHINA or MIDNIGHT SPECIAL, two intelligent Science Fiction films that work.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Larry Eisner (2082 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
Vikander. She is excellent and plays this two-dimensional character far beyond the script. (3 more)
The supernatural elements
Did I mention Vikander’s superb performance?
Damn, Vikander was spectacular!
The script (3 more)
The tropes
The characters’ lack of dimension
Low hope for a sequel
It’s action. It’s rife with plot holes. It’s got an AMAZING lead.
Note: I was given a copy by SmashBomb to review.
Note 2: I hate spoilers so you can count on this to have none as with all my reviews.
Tomb Raider, like all video game adaptations for the screen, tend to suck horribly (I’m looking directly at you, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat 2).
That said, the Angelina Jolie versions had huge budgets, large CGI setpieces to amaze and star power at the fairly flat lead role of Lara Croft. They were throwaway summer action fodder. They were fun and worth a watch, but never a second viewing.
Sadly, the new Tomb Raider won’t change anyone’s mind about the genre. It’s still mindless action throwaway, but this had a lot of potential for much much more.
Why? Because Alicia Vikander is SPECTACULAR and brings dimension, fragility, and a brutal ness to the action that you’d never see in the original sexually charged games, or the blockbuster megamillions Jolie versions.
The story itself is flat, full of holes (except the one that’s missing? I won’t say, but damn...) and contains the typical tropes of the lone hero in a jungle against baddies and nature. There’s booby traps, there’s danger at every corner, natural and man-made, and there’s intrigue behind the scenes. Nothing new there and sadly this script adds nothing at all (even an iota) to the genre. However, amazingly, Vikander’s subtle and fragile performance escalates the dull action into something believable. It takes the very false “high stakes” danger and makes it dangerous and raises the stakes because of the vulnerability and believability of this Lara Croft.
This is why I enjoyed the film. In the film world, everything is on Lara’s shoulders. And in reality, the film is carried SOLELY on Alicia Vikander’s shoulders. And she carries it well.
Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) is another great character played by a great actor, though he has far too little quality screen time. The relationship between them isn’t believable because of this lack of time spent in development, and therefore the stakes between them seem more false than they should. It is a lot of wasted potential.
Here’s my hope (though my expectations are low unless DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals skyrocket): this film demands a sequel. This flimsy summer fodder has what it takes to make a franchise and a lead that can become a true action icon, but it demands a better and more character-driven script.
The potential here is insane, but only time will tell if this mediocre (but fun) B-movie will get a serious sequel. It wouldn’t require so much money, as the strength of this Lara Croft is not in special effects and masculine explosions. This Croft is crafty, exudes strength in endurance rather than power, and has a realism to her that makes me believe she actually isn’t just a rich person with a privileged upbringing. She’s real, three-dimensional and you want her to succeed. Because of her, not because of the plot.
But put an actual plot and characters with depth and dialogue behind her? Wow. That would be amazing.
So, perhaps this review doesn’t seem like a 7/10. But here’s why: Wu brings the film to a 4-5, and Vikander makes this film every point above to the 7. In fact she had a 10 performance, but the script and direction just bring it down.
It’s a fun B-film. It’s summer action fodder. It’s worth a view, if not a purchase. And it is worth a sequel. Let’s hope and pray that Vikander’s Lara Croft returns to tell more tales.
Note 2: I hate spoilers so you can count on this to have none as with all my reviews.
Tomb Raider, like all video game adaptations for the screen, tend to suck horribly (I’m looking directly at you, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat 2).
That said, the Angelina Jolie versions had huge budgets, large CGI setpieces to amaze and star power at the fairly flat lead role of Lara Croft. They were throwaway summer action fodder. They were fun and worth a watch, but never a second viewing.
Sadly, the new Tomb Raider won’t change anyone’s mind about the genre. It’s still mindless action throwaway, but this had a lot of potential for much much more.
Why? Because Alicia Vikander is SPECTACULAR and brings dimension, fragility, and a brutal ness to the action that you’d never see in the original sexually charged games, or the blockbuster megamillions Jolie versions.
The story itself is flat, full of holes (except the one that’s missing? I won’t say, but damn...) and contains the typical tropes of the lone hero in a jungle against baddies and nature. There’s booby traps, there’s danger at every corner, natural and man-made, and there’s intrigue behind the scenes. Nothing new there and sadly this script adds nothing at all (even an iota) to the genre. However, amazingly, Vikander’s subtle and fragile performance escalates the dull action into something believable. It takes the very false “high stakes” danger and makes it dangerous and raises the stakes because of the vulnerability and believability of this Lara Croft.
This is why I enjoyed the film. In the film world, everything is on Lara’s shoulders. And in reality, the film is carried SOLELY on Alicia Vikander’s shoulders. And she carries it well.
Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) is another great character played by a great actor, though he has far too little quality screen time. The relationship between them isn’t believable because of this lack of time spent in development, and therefore the stakes between them seem more false than they should. It is a lot of wasted potential.
Here’s my hope (though my expectations are low unless DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals skyrocket): this film demands a sequel. This flimsy summer fodder has what it takes to make a franchise and a lead that can become a true action icon, but it demands a better and more character-driven script.
The potential here is insane, but only time will tell if this mediocre (but fun) B-movie will get a serious sequel. It wouldn’t require so much money, as the strength of this Lara Croft is not in special effects and masculine explosions. This Croft is crafty, exudes strength in endurance rather than power, and has a realism to her that makes me believe she actually isn’t just a rich person with a privileged upbringing. She’s real, three-dimensional and you want her to succeed. Because of her, not because of the plot.
But put an actual plot and characters with depth and dialogue behind her? Wow. That would be amazing.
So, perhaps this review doesn’t seem like a 7/10. But here’s why: Wu brings the film to a 4-5, and Vikander makes this film every point above to the 7. In fact she had a 10 performance, but the script and direction just bring it down.
It’s a fun B-film. It’s summer action fodder. It’s worth a view, if not a purchase. And it is worth a sequel. Let’s hope and pray that Vikander’s Lara Croft returns to tell more tales.
Louise (64 KP) rated Whisper to Me in Books
Jul 2, 2018
***This review may contain spoilers***
I won this book in a Goodreads giveaway, which let me tell you I was so pleased, I mean who doesn’t like free books?
First off, I need to mention how beautiful the cover is, the colours are amazing (I am a fan of pinks and purples) and the summer evening with fairground in the background just makes you feel like this is going be an epic summer read with loads of fluffyness…..How wrong was I! This book is DARK!
This book is told as a massive email, 535 pages long! I feel sorry for the guy she is writing to.
The story follows Cassie, she is writing an email to this boy that she met over the summer and tries to explain the reasons behind her actions and to hopefully win him back. The seaside resort that Cassie lives in always brings tourists and Teens looking for summer work, for the past couple of years there have been prostitutes/escorts that go missing but no evidence is left so the killer is at large.In Cassie’s favourite spot at the beach she finds a human foot washed up, after the shock of this discovery she starts hearing a voice inside her head, she is convinced it’s one of the prostitutes and starts investigating and taking matters into her own hands. Along the way she meets this guy and they start hanging out, but she is unable to reveal her secret.
I am going to start off by saying that I didn’t enjoy this book and there are several reasons. I hate having to write negative reviews as this author has taken a lot of time to write this and make a success of it but there were too many flaws for my liking.
First off the book is way to long for a contemporary, it could have easily been 200 pages less,there was a lot of waffle.
I didn’t like the characters!The father suffered from PTSD after being in the Navy SEALS, but to me he felt abusive and really harsh and scary, he was so protective of Cassie and would have these sudden outbursts that I actually feared for her. Cassie was really timid, a bit of a pushover. The guy she has a romance with (you never find out his name) is boring and dull.
HA HA, that brings me on to the romance. It was awful, it was awkward but not in a good way,in a cringe OMG why you doing this way. There was no spark, no angst..nada.
It uses *****for the swear words and that got really tedious in the end and sometimes I didn’t even know what swear word to use,you can fill in the blanks yourself.
Moving on to the things I liked, I enjoyed the focus on the mental health aspect, Cassie is diagnosed with some type of Schizophrenia and she has two different forms of treatment, she has a psychiatrist who just wants to pump drugs in her to solve the problem and then she has cognitive behavioural therapy and you can tell the difference between the good therapist and the bad one. I have read quite a few books about mental health like Depression, Bi-polar and anxiety but none with hearing voices so it was interesting to read something different.
The writing was good it was told in different formats and had some sarcasm and was definitely easy to read.
The ending, I was so damn disappointed with the ending! nothing got resolved, I literally felt I had been robbed. It was like Lake got bored and finished the story early and didn’t tie the ends.
I originally gave this book a 2.5 stars but after reflecting on this I have lowered it to 1.5-2 stars and one of those stars is for the cover.
I won this book in a Goodreads giveaway, which let me tell you I was so pleased, I mean who doesn’t like free books?
First off, I need to mention how beautiful the cover is, the colours are amazing (I am a fan of pinks and purples) and the summer evening with fairground in the background just makes you feel like this is going be an epic summer read with loads of fluffyness…..How wrong was I! This book is DARK!
This book is told as a massive email, 535 pages long! I feel sorry for the guy she is writing to.
The story follows Cassie, she is writing an email to this boy that she met over the summer and tries to explain the reasons behind her actions and to hopefully win him back. The seaside resort that Cassie lives in always brings tourists and Teens looking for summer work, for the past couple of years there have been prostitutes/escorts that go missing but no evidence is left so the killer is at large.In Cassie’s favourite spot at the beach she finds a human foot washed up, after the shock of this discovery she starts hearing a voice inside her head, she is convinced it’s one of the prostitutes and starts investigating and taking matters into her own hands. Along the way she meets this guy and they start hanging out, but she is unable to reveal her secret.
I am going to start off by saying that I didn’t enjoy this book and there are several reasons. I hate having to write negative reviews as this author has taken a lot of time to write this and make a success of it but there were too many flaws for my liking.
First off the book is way to long for a contemporary, it could have easily been 200 pages less,there was a lot of waffle.
I didn’t like the characters!The father suffered from PTSD after being in the Navy SEALS, but to me he felt abusive and really harsh and scary, he was so protective of Cassie and would have these sudden outbursts that I actually feared for her. Cassie was really timid, a bit of a pushover. The guy she has a romance with (you never find out his name) is boring and dull.
HA HA, that brings me on to the romance. It was awful, it was awkward but not in a good way,in a cringe OMG why you doing this way. There was no spark, no angst..nada.
It uses *****for the swear words and that got really tedious in the end and sometimes I didn’t even know what swear word to use,you can fill in the blanks yourself.
Moving on to the things I liked, I enjoyed the focus on the mental health aspect, Cassie is diagnosed with some type of Schizophrenia and she has two different forms of treatment, she has a psychiatrist who just wants to pump drugs in her to solve the problem and then she has cognitive behavioural therapy and you can tell the difference between the good therapist and the bad one. I have read quite a few books about mental health like Depression, Bi-polar and anxiety but none with hearing voices so it was interesting to read something different.
The writing was good it was told in different formats and had some sarcasm and was definitely easy to read.
The ending, I was so damn disappointed with the ending! nothing got resolved, I literally felt I had been robbed. It was like Lake got bored and finished the story early and didn’t tie the ends.
I originally gave this book a 2.5 stars but after reflecting on this I have lowered it to 1.5-2 stars and one of those stars is for the cover.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
Hardy, Williams elevate mediocre material
I had lowered my expectations when entering the new Sony film VENOM for I had heard that this non-MCU Marvel film wasn't really a Marvel - or a Spiderman - film, even though it features one of the more famous characters from the Spiderman Universe, which is, of course, a Marvel property.
Confused, yet?
Well, don't be. Because this knowledge is not needed, nor (quite frankly) is it wanted as the filmmakers of Venom made a film that centers on the titular anti-hero with no real regard to his place in the Marvel Universe.
And this works well...enough. True, the plot, dialogue, situations, special effects and gadgets of this film are middle-of-the-road at best, but with the two folks at the center of this film, I started to forgive this film it's many flaws and enjoyed two Oscar-caliber Actors having a good ol' time in a Supehero movie.
Venom, of course, tells the story of...Eddie Brock..who becomes - through a merging of his body with an Alien symbiotic creature (don't worry about it, just roll with it) - becomes the titular VENOM. A being that wants to eat live creatures (most notably human heads) while the good part of Eddie tries to keep him in check and help him fight bad guys.
In lesser performance hands, this character could become silly and stupid, but in the more than capable performance by the great Tom Hardy (Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES), Eddie Brock/Venom is an intriguing figure to watch on-screen. His simultaneous ability to look unnerved and hunger for live flesh while looking for a nice cool bath caused me to smirk on more than one occasion and I ended up rooting for him throughout the film.
Matching him is the great Michelle Williams (she of the 4 Oscar nominations, most recently in MANCHESTER BY THE SEA) as Eddie Brock's ex-Fiance Anne Weying. Like Hardy, Williams is elevating mediocre material to something better than the mediocrity it was destined to be. The chemistry between Williams and Hardy is evident in their bi-play with each other and I couldn't help but think "get these two into an Oscar-caliber film together and watch the sparks - and the awards - fly."
Unfortunately, Riz Ahmed as bad guy Carlton Drake is not able to rise above the material and when he is playing opposite Hardy and/or Williams, he pales in comparison and I began to realize just how weak the script by the trio of Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel is. Clearly, two of them were brought in to re-write the original (I have no idea who did what) but none of them were able to elevate the proceedings.
Nor could Director Ruben Fleischer (ZOMBIELAND) elevate things. His Direction is pedestrian at best. There is nothing really interesting going on and when the going got tough he just started to rely on the quick cut/edits that is so "en vogue" these days - and it grew tiresome.
But when I started to grow weary of the events on the screen, Hardy and Williams would show up and I began to forgive things again, even thinking during the credits scene (where they introduce the Villain for VENOM 2), I want to see Hardy and Williams play against (name deleted so as not to spoil) as the new Villain - that might be cool!
So, I'm "in" for Venom. It was "good enough" and I will come back for the next installment - and based on the Box Office of the opening weekend, there WILL BE a next installment.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Confused, yet?
Well, don't be. Because this knowledge is not needed, nor (quite frankly) is it wanted as the filmmakers of Venom made a film that centers on the titular anti-hero with no real regard to his place in the Marvel Universe.
And this works well...enough. True, the plot, dialogue, situations, special effects and gadgets of this film are middle-of-the-road at best, but with the two folks at the center of this film, I started to forgive this film it's many flaws and enjoyed two Oscar-caliber Actors having a good ol' time in a Supehero movie.
Venom, of course, tells the story of...Eddie Brock..who becomes - through a merging of his body with an Alien symbiotic creature (don't worry about it, just roll with it) - becomes the titular VENOM. A being that wants to eat live creatures (most notably human heads) while the good part of Eddie tries to keep him in check and help him fight bad guys.
In lesser performance hands, this character could become silly and stupid, but in the more than capable performance by the great Tom Hardy (Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES), Eddie Brock/Venom is an intriguing figure to watch on-screen. His simultaneous ability to look unnerved and hunger for live flesh while looking for a nice cool bath caused me to smirk on more than one occasion and I ended up rooting for him throughout the film.
Matching him is the great Michelle Williams (she of the 4 Oscar nominations, most recently in MANCHESTER BY THE SEA) as Eddie Brock's ex-Fiance Anne Weying. Like Hardy, Williams is elevating mediocre material to something better than the mediocrity it was destined to be. The chemistry between Williams and Hardy is evident in their bi-play with each other and I couldn't help but think "get these two into an Oscar-caliber film together and watch the sparks - and the awards - fly."
Unfortunately, Riz Ahmed as bad guy Carlton Drake is not able to rise above the material and when he is playing opposite Hardy and/or Williams, he pales in comparison and I began to realize just how weak the script by the trio of Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel is. Clearly, two of them were brought in to re-write the original (I have no idea who did what) but none of them were able to elevate the proceedings.
Nor could Director Ruben Fleischer (ZOMBIELAND) elevate things. His Direction is pedestrian at best. There is nothing really interesting going on and when the going got tough he just started to rely on the quick cut/edits that is so "en vogue" these days - and it grew tiresome.
But when I started to grow weary of the events on the screen, Hardy and Williams would show up and I began to forgive things again, even thinking during the credits scene (where they introduce the Villain for VENOM 2), I want to see Hardy and Williams play against (name deleted so as not to spoil) as the new Villain - that might be cool!
So, I'm "in" for Venom. It was "good enough" and I will come back for the next installment - and based on the Box Office of the opening weekend, there WILL BE a next installment.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Cassie Osbourne (6 KP) rated Chains (Seeds of America, #1) in Books
Nov 9, 2018
When Isabel and Ruth's owner dies, they are sold to the loyalist Locktons and shipped to New York. 'Chains' tells the story of the American Revolution through the eyes of a thirteen-year-old slave, struggling to take care of her little sister and discover what real freedom is and how a person can gain it.
I first read this book in 2010 when I was thirteen while I was stuck at a grammar school open evening that my sister was at. I went to the library and started reading 'Chains' instead of having to traipse around hearing about how many geniuses of that school got into Oxford and Cambridge. I was so hooked that I felt that I couldn't leave without it so I stuck it up my jumper and nicked it. I have recently (and legally) got my hands on a copy of 'Ashes', the final book in the trilogy and so am rereading the first two books which I haven't done in years. I am pleased to say that it is still as good as it was when I read it eight years ago.
While I do like well rounded, complex characters and relationships, there is certainly something to be said for simplicity. None of the characters has too much of a character arc in this book except for the protagonist, who is the one telling the story so this may have something to do with her being an unreliable narrator (something that you learn so much about in English A-Level). Did the characters seem a bit stereotypical and cliched at times? Yes, definitely. Did I really care? No, not especially.
The atmosphere was great throughout, especially in the prison scenes and when Isabel has a fever. Everything felt very real and detailed, right down to the last black hair ribbon stashed in a draw. Every chapter, every page, every sentence felt so real and grounded in reality which is difficult to find in a book.
I really enjoyed the writing style, it all suited Isabel's voice down to the ground. Something that I noticed more reading it this time than I did when I was younger were the extracts at the beginnings of the chapters as it is a really nice and easy way to contextualise what is going on in the chapter in comparison to the date in with the chapter is set. It also gives the book a much more political feel which, again, I didn't quite see as much when I was younger.
The plot as a whole is very good and well written but there were definitely some sections that were just not needed or justified at all. However, that is a very minor thing.
The only real downfall of this book was some of the logic. Isabel gets way too lucky too many times, especially since she is a young black girl with a very distinctive scar on her face. A lot of people just seem too nice to her given that she is a slave and the level of racism back then as well. There is one particular instance at the end with some fireworks that I just pure and simply didn't buy.
This book, as well as 'Forge', has been sitting on my shelf for years just waiting to be picked up again and reread. I am so happy that so many years after I read it the first time it is still just as good.
Characters: 8/10
Atmosphere: 9/10
Writing Style: 8/10
Plot: 8/10
Intrigue: 9/10
Logic: 7.5/10
Enjoyment: 10/10
I first read this book in 2010 when I was thirteen while I was stuck at a grammar school open evening that my sister was at. I went to the library and started reading 'Chains' instead of having to traipse around hearing about how many geniuses of that school got into Oxford and Cambridge. I was so hooked that I felt that I couldn't leave without it so I stuck it up my jumper and nicked it. I have recently (and legally) got my hands on a copy of 'Ashes', the final book in the trilogy and so am rereading the first two books which I haven't done in years. I am pleased to say that it is still as good as it was when I read it eight years ago.
While I do like well rounded, complex characters and relationships, there is certainly something to be said for simplicity. None of the characters has too much of a character arc in this book except for the protagonist, who is the one telling the story so this may have something to do with her being an unreliable narrator (something that you learn so much about in English A-Level). Did the characters seem a bit stereotypical and cliched at times? Yes, definitely. Did I really care? No, not especially.
The atmosphere was great throughout, especially in the prison scenes and when Isabel has a fever. Everything felt very real and detailed, right down to the last black hair ribbon stashed in a draw. Every chapter, every page, every sentence felt so real and grounded in reality which is difficult to find in a book.
I really enjoyed the writing style, it all suited Isabel's voice down to the ground. Something that I noticed more reading it this time than I did when I was younger were the extracts at the beginnings of the chapters as it is a really nice and easy way to contextualise what is going on in the chapter in comparison to the date in with the chapter is set. It also gives the book a much more political feel which, again, I didn't quite see as much when I was younger.
The plot as a whole is very good and well written but there were definitely some sections that were just not needed or justified at all. However, that is a very minor thing.
The only real downfall of this book was some of the logic. Isabel gets way too lucky too many times, especially since she is a young black girl with a very distinctive scar on her face. A lot of people just seem too nice to her given that she is a slave and the level of racism back then as well. There is one particular instance at the end with some fireworks that I just pure and simply didn't buy.
This book, as well as 'Forge', has been sitting on my shelf for years just waiting to be picked up again and reread. I am so happy that so many years after I read it the first time it is still just as good.
Characters: 8/10
Atmosphere: 9/10
Writing Style: 8/10
Plot: 8/10
Intrigue: 9/10
Logic: 7.5/10
Enjoyment: 10/10