Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jul 27, 2019)
Overhyped and disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review will contain spoilers.... and this is my opinon.
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated You in Books
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Unique (3 more)
Well thought out
Fast paced
Creepy
Sometimes loses focus (1 more)
Character feels inconsistant
Unique, interesting and stands on it's own
As a book nerd, and fan of crime podcasts and shows, I had to read this book after loving the show version of it.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Stylebook Men: Closet Organizer & Assistant
Lifestyle and Productivity
App
Get the most out of your closet - for the price of a latte or a gossip magazine, you could have a...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Sound of Metal (2019) in Movies
Mar 22, 2021
Rooted in Humanity
SOUND OF METAL has a pretty simple “one-line summary”: Heavy Metal Drummer deals with going deaf. But is it the humanity at the center of this film that makes it worthwhile.
Written and Directed by Darius Marder (THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES), SOUND OF METAL tells the tale of Ruben, the drummer of the Heavy Metal Band BLACK GAMMON, who must come to terms with suddenly losing most of his hearing.
Starring Riz Ahmed - in an Oscar nominated turn - SOUND OF METAL follows Ruben’s journey as he comes to terms with the wrinkle that his life has thrown at him and the silence makes him study the non-stillness inside of him.
This all sounds like it could be corny, right? Well…under the guidance of Marder and with a central performance that is grounded and real by Ahmed, it is anything but. This film finds itself in it’s humanity and the very real, personal interactions.
Credit must start with the performance of Ahmed (heretofore known to me as Bodhi Rook in STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE), he is in almost every scene in the film and he must bring a vulnerability to the screen for the audience to care about him - and he accomplishes this in spades. Even when his character makes mistakes (and, trust me, he makes a TON of them), you end up rooting for him to succeed.
Paul Raci was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Joe, the head of the Deaf Community for Addicts that Ruben eventually goes to. His turn is also grounded in the reality - the reality of addicts who have yet another twist in their life thrown at them. Raci has a road-weary look to him and gives off an aura of someone who has seen - and heard - it all, so must take a “tough love” approach. This performance works very well.
Also strong in this film is Olivia Cooke (READY PLAYER ONE) as Lou, Ruben’s girlfriend/lead singer of the Metal Band they are in. She must make some tough decisions in the course of this film - and you end up emotionally engaged in her story as well. Both Ruben and Lou are good people at heart that must make hard choices, you root for both of them to succeed even though, through these choices, pain and suffering and separation must occur.
All of this sounds good, but there has been many a film that falters under the “good intentions” of it’s Director/Screenwriter, but SOUND OF METAL avoids most of the pitfalls of these types of films by not dwelling too much on the pain and suffering of the leads - it’s there, but (as Joe would say), deal with it. I’m a little surprised that Marder did not get a Best Director Oscar nod (the work is that good), but am glad that he did get an Original Screenplay nomination.
And…as you can imagine…a film about Deafness is reliant on the Sound Design to help bring that aspect of Ruben’s experience to the audience - and this film delivers the goods. The sound team was, rightfully, nominated for the Oscar for sound design - and they should easily win - for the sound is another character in this film and that is what, ultimately, makes this film works. The audience is put in Ruben’s shoes and, at times, are unable to hear what others on the screen are saying.
A very satisfying film experience - one that needs to be seen with no distractions (especially sound distractions), so find a quiet time, lower the shades and dive into the world of the SOUND OF METAL.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Darius Marder (THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES), SOUND OF METAL tells the tale of Ruben, the drummer of the Heavy Metal Band BLACK GAMMON, who must come to terms with suddenly losing most of his hearing.
Starring Riz Ahmed - in an Oscar nominated turn - SOUND OF METAL follows Ruben’s journey as he comes to terms with the wrinkle that his life has thrown at him and the silence makes him study the non-stillness inside of him.
This all sounds like it could be corny, right? Well…under the guidance of Marder and with a central performance that is grounded and real by Ahmed, it is anything but. This film finds itself in it’s humanity and the very real, personal interactions.
Credit must start with the performance of Ahmed (heretofore known to me as Bodhi Rook in STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE), he is in almost every scene in the film and he must bring a vulnerability to the screen for the audience to care about him - and he accomplishes this in spades. Even when his character makes mistakes (and, trust me, he makes a TON of them), you end up rooting for him to succeed.
Paul Raci was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Joe, the head of the Deaf Community for Addicts that Ruben eventually goes to. His turn is also grounded in the reality - the reality of addicts who have yet another twist in their life thrown at them. Raci has a road-weary look to him and gives off an aura of someone who has seen - and heard - it all, so must take a “tough love” approach. This performance works very well.
Also strong in this film is Olivia Cooke (READY PLAYER ONE) as Lou, Ruben’s girlfriend/lead singer of the Metal Band they are in. She must make some tough decisions in the course of this film - and you end up emotionally engaged in her story as well. Both Ruben and Lou are good people at heart that must make hard choices, you root for both of them to succeed even though, through these choices, pain and suffering and separation must occur.
All of this sounds good, but there has been many a film that falters under the “good intentions” of it’s Director/Screenwriter, but SOUND OF METAL avoids most of the pitfalls of these types of films by not dwelling too much on the pain and suffering of the leads - it’s there, but (as Joe would say), deal with it. I’m a little surprised that Marder did not get a Best Director Oscar nod (the work is that good), but am glad that he did get an Original Screenplay nomination.
And…as you can imagine…a film about Deafness is reliant on the Sound Design to help bring that aspect of Ruben’s experience to the audience - and this film delivers the goods. The sound team was, rightfully, nominated for the Oscar for sound design - and they should easily win - for the sound is another character in this film and that is what, ultimately, makes this film works. The audience is put in Ruben’s shoes and, at times, are unable to hear what others on the screen are saying.
A very satisfying film experience - one that needs to be seen with no distractions (especially sound distractions), so find a quiet time, lower the shades and dive into the world of the SOUND OF METAL.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When I first heard that The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers would be getting a film adaptation, I was a bit apprehensive. Hollywood has had a bit of trouble converting many of the themes and issues brought up in a variety of shows into films that stay loyal to their respective franchises.
Fans on social media have often expressed their dissatisfaction with films not staying true to the origin stories or their inabil;ity to retain much of the character and charm that endeared them to their fans. Power Rangers does not suffer from this dilemma. As someone who watched the series as it first hit American markets in the 1990s, I was unsure of how this story would transfer onto the big screen.
It wasn’t something that I was too personally invested in. It was a series in which I considered myself to be a casual fan understanding the background, characters, and general direction of the show. I wasn’t prepared for what the film version offered.
This adaptation is near perfect in the way that it is able to create a modern, mature version that incorporates many aspects into weaving their story.
The basics of the film are roughly the same as the show: it is based in Angel Grove, there are five teenagers serving the role of rangers whose goal is to save the world, and all the complexities that come with being a superhero who has a “real life.”
One of the more remarkable issues related to the film is how the writers and director are able to be inclusive with their characters without being condescending to their audiences old and new. We get a glimpse of a team that is more colorful and diverse. Where the original crew showed a group of youths of different races, the film version does not stop with race as demonstrating the variety that exists within our world. The film allows for the inclusion of people on the autism spectrum, as well as, allowing for the inclusion of the LGBT community. The film shows audiences that there are people just like them or people that they know in the superhero realm. It is not limited by race, gender, sexual orientation, or cognitive development.
Power Rangers itself is a fun movie with depth. As the film continued, I tried to look for areas to pick it apart and find those pieces that really detracted from the story. The film has its faults in a simply developing storyline, but that goes with the franchise. It isn’t supposed to be complex or overbearing. The humor ranges from sophomoric to sophisticated. The film is accessible to those who are new to the franchise and those who have been watching since its inception. Additionally, it is a superhero movie it is not insulting to its audience. It demonstrates the difficulties that exist with teen life, presents real problems that they have to deal with in contrast to the fantasy that they are living out as part of this team.
The film is beautifully shot and the CGI is nearly seamless (the film is not overly reliant on it, either). The fighting and action sequences are as much a part of the story as the characters themselves. Power Rangers allows for audiences to be entertained visually and comedically. Additionally, it allows for those of us who have not watched or followed the Power Rangers in a while to be a bit nostalgic and look back to when we ourselves could not get home quickly enough for “Morphin’ Time.” The film is updated, mature, and will have fans young and old beaming with delight.
Fans on social media have often expressed their dissatisfaction with films not staying true to the origin stories or their inabil;ity to retain much of the character and charm that endeared them to their fans. Power Rangers does not suffer from this dilemma. As someone who watched the series as it first hit American markets in the 1990s, I was unsure of how this story would transfer onto the big screen.
It wasn’t something that I was too personally invested in. It was a series in which I considered myself to be a casual fan understanding the background, characters, and general direction of the show. I wasn’t prepared for what the film version offered.
This adaptation is near perfect in the way that it is able to create a modern, mature version that incorporates many aspects into weaving their story.
The basics of the film are roughly the same as the show: it is based in Angel Grove, there are five teenagers serving the role of rangers whose goal is to save the world, and all the complexities that come with being a superhero who has a “real life.”
One of the more remarkable issues related to the film is how the writers and director are able to be inclusive with their characters without being condescending to their audiences old and new. We get a glimpse of a team that is more colorful and diverse. Where the original crew showed a group of youths of different races, the film version does not stop with race as demonstrating the variety that exists within our world. The film allows for the inclusion of people on the autism spectrum, as well as, allowing for the inclusion of the LGBT community. The film shows audiences that there are people just like them or people that they know in the superhero realm. It is not limited by race, gender, sexual orientation, or cognitive development.
Power Rangers itself is a fun movie with depth. As the film continued, I tried to look for areas to pick it apart and find those pieces that really detracted from the story. The film has its faults in a simply developing storyline, but that goes with the franchise. It isn’t supposed to be complex or overbearing. The humor ranges from sophomoric to sophisticated. The film is accessible to those who are new to the franchise and those who have been watching since its inception. Additionally, it is a superhero movie it is not insulting to its audience. It demonstrates the difficulties that exist with teen life, presents real problems that they have to deal with in contrast to the fantasy that they are living out as part of this team.
The film is beautifully shot and the CGI is nearly seamless (the film is not overly reliant on it, either). The fighting and action sequences are as much a part of the story as the characters themselves. Power Rangers allows for audiences to be entertained visually and comedically. Additionally, it allows for those of us who have not watched or followed the Power Rangers in a while to be a bit nostalgic and look back to when we ourselves could not get home quickly enough for “Morphin’ Time.” The film is updated, mature, and will have fans young and old beaming with delight.
London travel guide with offline map and tube metro transit by BeetleTrip
Travel and Navigation
App
London Travel Guide Premium by BeetleTrip is your ultimate oversea travel buddy. Offline GPS locates...
IntelliDrink PRO - Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Calculator
Food & Drink and Health & Fitness
App
IntelliDrink is a sophisticated blood alcohol content (BAC) calculator. It has a simple user...
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Caretakers in Books
Apr 6, 2020
As soon as I read the synopsis for The Caretakers by Eliza Maxwell, I was instantly hooked. I knew it was a book that I had to read. It's like it was calling out to me saying "read me...read me." What a wild ride The Caretakers had in store for me!
Tessa Shepard made a documentary that helped free a man that she thought was framed for murder. However, when it seems he's killed the police chief's daughter, Tessa's life becomes upended. Around the same time, Tessa and her twin sister inherit a large estate named Fallbrook. There she meets two old ladies who are the caretakers of Fallbrook that have their own crazy story about the past when it comes to Fallbrooks history. With danger lurking around every corner, Tessa must try to survive and figure out the two old ladies' story.
I could not fault the plot of The Caretakers at all. It was absolutely solid from beginning to end. With The Caretakers, I felt like I was sort of getting two stories in one which was great! The first story is Tessa's. The narrative follows Tessa as she deals with her conscience about freeing a man from prison who may have actually been guilty. She's also dealing with the fallout between her and her twin sister Margot. With Tessa's reputation in tatters, Tessa tries to stay out of the spotlight and deal with what's going on in her personal life, but it doesn't turn out to be that easy. The second narrative belongs to the two old ladies and caretakers of Fallbrook, Kitty and Deidre. Their story was the most interesting to read about. Kitty and Deidre remember two different accounts of what actually befell Fallbrook when they were children. It was traumatizing for both of them, and at least one of the sisters has blocked out the actual memories of the horrible event that happened there. I found myself trying to guess which events were the true ones. Kudos to Eliza Maxwell for adding so many plot twists to The Caretakers that I never saw coming! I absolutely was thrilled that there were so many plot twists. Just when I thought I had the story figured out, a curve ball was thrown at me making me have to start my guess work all over again. However, all cliff hangers and questions are answered by the end of the book.
The characters in The Caretakers were all written fantastically! All were fleshed out appropriately even the minor characters. It was easy to empathize with everything Tessa was going through. She had so much bad stuff going on at one time. Learning her back story, it was easy to see why she thought the way she did. I liked Margot as well. While she's not a main character, she does play a fairly important role in Tessa's life. Sometimes I felt like Margot was a little too closed off when it came to Tessa and her husband, Ben. This wasn't due to bad writing, but quite the opposite. I felt like this was a character flaw that even real life people struggle with. I enjoyed Oliver's character. He made for a fantastic antagonist. Oliver was the one who Tessa freed from prison due to her documentary. Through fantastic storytelling, it was easy to see why Oliver went off the deep end after he was released. I felt bad for him actually. Deidre was an interesting character, and I came to understand why she was wary of strangers meddling in hers and Kitty's business. Kitty was my all time favorite character in The Caretakers though. I was sucked up in her childlike way of acting. She seemed to trust everyone and came across as such a sweet person. It seemed like she was too nice to be unkind towards anyone. I felt like Kitty had the most interesting backstory out of all the characters. The Cooke family, who had previously lived in Fallbrook before it became derelict, had the most intriguing story out of everyone. I really enjoyed reading about them.
Trigger warnings for The Caretakers include profanity, murder, violence, drinking, and police corruption.
To say I was blown away by The Caretakers is an understatement. Seriously, this book gave me goosebumps and a severe book hangover. That's how great it was! With intriguing plot lines and fantastic characters, it was such a fantastic read. I would most definitely recommend The Caretakers by Eliza Maxwell to those aged 17+. I really believe readers of all genres will really enjoy this book!
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Eliza Maxwell for sending me a paperback and Netgalley for an eBook of The Caretakers in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Tessa Shepard made a documentary that helped free a man that she thought was framed for murder. However, when it seems he's killed the police chief's daughter, Tessa's life becomes upended. Around the same time, Tessa and her twin sister inherit a large estate named Fallbrook. There she meets two old ladies who are the caretakers of Fallbrook that have their own crazy story about the past when it comes to Fallbrooks history. With danger lurking around every corner, Tessa must try to survive and figure out the two old ladies' story.
I could not fault the plot of The Caretakers at all. It was absolutely solid from beginning to end. With The Caretakers, I felt like I was sort of getting two stories in one which was great! The first story is Tessa's. The narrative follows Tessa as she deals with her conscience about freeing a man from prison who may have actually been guilty. She's also dealing with the fallout between her and her twin sister Margot. With Tessa's reputation in tatters, Tessa tries to stay out of the spotlight and deal with what's going on in her personal life, but it doesn't turn out to be that easy. The second narrative belongs to the two old ladies and caretakers of Fallbrook, Kitty and Deidre. Their story was the most interesting to read about. Kitty and Deidre remember two different accounts of what actually befell Fallbrook when they were children. It was traumatizing for both of them, and at least one of the sisters has blocked out the actual memories of the horrible event that happened there. I found myself trying to guess which events were the true ones. Kudos to Eliza Maxwell for adding so many plot twists to The Caretakers that I never saw coming! I absolutely was thrilled that there were so many plot twists. Just when I thought I had the story figured out, a curve ball was thrown at me making me have to start my guess work all over again. However, all cliff hangers and questions are answered by the end of the book.
The characters in The Caretakers were all written fantastically! All were fleshed out appropriately even the minor characters. It was easy to empathize with everything Tessa was going through. She had so much bad stuff going on at one time. Learning her back story, it was easy to see why she thought the way she did. I liked Margot as well. While she's not a main character, she does play a fairly important role in Tessa's life. Sometimes I felt like Margot was a little too closed off when it came to Tessa and her husband, Ben. This wasn't due to bad writing, but quite the opposite. I felt like this was a character flaw that even real life people struggle with. I enjoyed Oliver's character. He made for a fantastic antagonist. Oliver was the one who Tessa freed from prison due to her documentary. Through fantastic storytelling, it was easy to see why Oliver went off the deep end after he was released. I felt bad for him actually. Deidre was an interesting character, and I came to understand why she was wary of strangers meddling in hers and Kitty's business. Kitty was my all time favorite character in The Caretakers though. I was sucked up in her childlike way of acting. She seemed to trust everyone and came across as such a sweet person. It seemed like she was too nice to be unkind towards anyone. I felt like Kitty had the most interesting backstory out of all the characters. The Cooke family, who had previously lived in Fallbrook before it became derelict, had the most intriguing story out of everyone. I really enjoyed reading about them.
Trigger warnings for The Caretakers include profanity, murder, violence, drinking, and police corruption.
To say I was blown away by The Caretakers is an understatement. Seriously, this book gave me goosebumps and a severe book hangover. That's how great it was! With intriguing plot lines and fantastic characters, it was such a fantastic read. I would most definitely recommend The Caretakers by Eliza Maxwell to those aged 17+. I really believe readers of all genres will really enjoy this book!
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Eliza Maxwell for sending me a paperback and Netgalley for an eBook of The Caretakers in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated A Frozen Heart in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
It seems like adaptations of Frozen and Frozen 2 are everywhere right now: it must be so hard for an author to come up with a story that is different enough to draw readers in but still in-keeping with the story. Luckily, Elizabeth Rudnick’s skilled writing turns the typical Frozen tale on its head: telling it solely from the perspective of Anna and Hans.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.