Search
175 Best Air Fryer Recipes
Book
Fantastic fried taste and texture with less oil - an air fryer is a kitchen appliance that can brown...
The Limits of Resolution
Book
"This beautiful book can be read as a novel presenting carefully our quest to get more and more...
Flannery
Book
The landscape of American literature was fundamentally changed when Flannery O'Connor stepped onto...
Sous Vide Basics: 100+ Recipes for Perfect Results
Jay Nutt and Jennifer Mackenzie
Book
Take a cue from chefs and take the guesswork out of preparing meals with this ingenious appliance....
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Infernal
Dan Brown has had a bad rap over the years from snobbish reviewers who dismiss his work as “trash”. I’m sure to a large degree the multi-millionaire Dan Brown couldn’t give a toss! I personally enjoyed both the books and Ron Howard’s films of “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons” as glossy escapism. Occasionally though books will generate a “WHHAAAT??” moment and Brown’s 2013 novel “Inferno” generated just such a response in its dramatic conclusion… and (for me at least) not in a good way. As someone always looking at script potential in books, the words “unfilmable” came to mind. So veteran screenwriter David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”, “Mission Impossible”, “Spiderman”) is to be congratulated in ‘adapting’ the story to provide a coherent screenplay.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Frozen II (2019) in Movies
Mar 23, 2020
Better Than The Original
I never really had much desire/interest in revisiting the sisters from Arendelle and thought the much-hyped sequel to the 2013 mega-hit, FROZEN, was nothing more than a cash grab. But...my daughter talked me into checking it out, so it was with much harumphing that I sat down for a viewing of FROZEN 2.
I loved it.
Loved it, so much so, that I have since watched it a 2nd time - and liked it even more.
Set 6 years after the events in the first film, life in Arendelle has settled down for Queen Elsa, her sister Anna, Anna's boyfriend Kristoff, his reindeer Sven and good ol' Olaf the Snowman (who still likes warm hugs). But something is stirring inside Elsa. Is it a longing for more? Is it a calling from outside? Is it something more? I won't spoil it, but the journey/adventure that this stirring from Elsa begets is a welcome "road trip" for some old friends. It lets us, the audience, spend some more quality time with these characters - with some wonderful music, to boot.
All voice actors from the first film are back (why wouldn't they be) and their voice performances are stronger and more self-assured than in the first film. Idina Menzel, Jonathan Groff, Josh Gad and the under-rated Kristin Bell all "bring-it" to this adventure while newcomers like Sterling K. Brown, Evan Rachel Wood and Martha Plimpton all join in with aplomb making a very appealing film with an fun adventure that has, at it's core, heart. Which, I think, is what makes both of the Frozen films work. The deep heart at the core of these films, and their underlying theme of familial love will win out against all odds.
Add to that the FANTASTIC songs written, yet again, by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez. They are catchy, fun, hummable and TERRIFIC. It was worth the 2nd viewing just to hear the songs again.
The direction by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee (the Directors of the first FROZEN) is just as self-assured and strong. They "up" the precedings by picking up the pace and adding to the "difficulty" level (shooting much of this film on water) and they succeed mostly throughout the film.
It is always fun for me to be surprised by a film - and I was most definitely surpised by Frozen 2 - and I would venture to guess that you will be too, especially if you drop any "attitude" you have about this sequel existing and just sit back and enjoy the ride that you are going to be on.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
FROZEN 2 is free to stream for subscribers of DISNEY+ or can be streamed for a fee (to rent or own) on most major platforms like YouTube, GooglePlay, Vudu and Amazon.
I loved it.
Loved it, so much so, that I have since watched it a 2nd time - and liked it even more.
Set 6 years after the events in the first film, life in Arendelle has settled down for Queen Elsa, her sister Anna, Anna's boyfriend Kristoff, his reindeer Sven and good ol' Olaf the Snowman (who still likes warm hugs). But something is stirring inside Elsa. Is it a longing for more? Is it a calling from outside? Is it something more? I won't spoil it, but the journey/adventure that this stirring from Elsa begets is a welcome "road trip" for some old friends. It lets us, the audience, spend some more quality time with these characters - with some wonderful music, to boot.
All voice actors from the first film are back (why wouldn't they be) and their voice performances are stronger and more self-assured than in the first film. Idina Menzel, Jonathan Groff, Josh Gad and the under-rated Kristin Bell all "bring-it" to this adventure while newcomers like Sterling K. Brown, Evan Rachel Wood and Martha Plimpton all join in with aplomb making a very appealing film with an fun adventure that has, at it's core, heart. Which, I think, is what makes both of the Frozen films work. The deep heart at the core of these films, and their underlying theme of familial love will win out against all odds.
Add to that the FANTASTIC songs written, yet again, by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez. They are catchy, fun, hummable and TERRIFIC. It was worth the 2nd viewing just to hear the songs again.
The direction by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee (the Directors of the first FROZEN) is just as self-assured and strong. They "up" the precedings by picking up the pace and adding to the "difficulty" level (shooting much of this film on water) and they succeed mostly throughout the film.
It is always fun for me to be surprised by a film - and I was most definitely surpised by Frozen 2 - and I would venture to guess that you will be too, especially if you drop any "attitude" you have about this sequel existing and just sit back and enjoy the ride that you are going to be on.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
FROZEN 2 is free to stream for subscribers of DISNEY+ or can be streamed for a fee (to rent or own) on most major platforms like YouTube, GooglePlay, Vudu and Amazon.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 18, 2020
A Winning (enough) combination
I'm a sucker for Sherlock Holmes. I grew up watching the fantastic black and white Holmes films from the 1940's starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. I checked out '70's Holmes flicks like MURDER BY DECREE and the 7 PERCENT SOLUTION and then re-fell-in-love with Holmes with the Jeremy Brett BBC SHERLOCK HOLMES TV series of the 1980's and, of course, Benedict Cumberbatch's modern take on the master sleuth in the 2000's was "must see TV" for me. I was even on-board with Robert Downey Jr's. "take" on this iconic sleuth and was thrilled when Sir Ian McKellen portrayed an elderly Sherlock Holmes in MR. HOLMES.
So...I eagerly awaited the Netflix treatment of the "younger" sister of Sherlock Holmes in ENOLA HOLMES -and, I gotta say, I wasn't disappointed.
Based on the Young Adult series of novels by Nancy Springer, ENOLA HOLMES introduces us to the (heretofore unknown) younger sister of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes. Raised by a fiercely independent mother in the late 1880's, Enola goes searching for her when she goes missing and gets mixed up in the "The Case of the Missing Marquess" along the way.
Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS) is a winning, charismatic (enough) performer as Enola. She is a steady and sure hand at the helm of this ship throughout the course of this 2 hour and 3 minute adventure. While I would have liked her to command the screen more with her presence, she does enough to make it a good, solid, effort.
The supporting cast is just as good. Helena Bonham Carter (FIGHT CLUB) is perfectly cast as Enola's (and Sherlock's and Mycroft's) mother - she has that fierce streak of independence and "don't mess with me" energy while carving her own path. She is the type of character that one would go looking for if she went missing. Sam Claflin (HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE) is finely unrecognizable (at least to me) as Mycroft - written in this piece as the more "traditional" of the Holmes family and Henry Cavill (MAN OF STEEL) brings a strong arrogance to his portrayal of Sherlock. He also brings something else - heart - to this character, a character trait that has "traditional" fans of this character up in arms. For me, it works well in the context of this film.
As for the film itself - it is good (enough). I found myself enjoying the mystery and the characters and enjoyed my time in this world. It's not anything new, but it's like putting on a pair of old shoes - comforting to wear.
This is an adaptation of the first book of the series, and I, for one, hope that there are more. It's a winning combination that was pleasant to watch.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...I eagerly awaited the Netflix treatment of the "younger" sister of Sherlock Holmes in ENOLA HOLMES -and, I gotta say, I wasn't disappointed.
Based on the Young Adult series of novels by Nancy Springer, ENOLA HOLMES introduces us to the (heretofore unknown) younger sister of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes. Raised by a fiercely independent mother in the late 1880's, Enola goes searching for her when she goes missing and gets mixed up in the "The Case of the Missing Marquess" along the way.
Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS) is a winning, charismatic (enough) performer as Enola. She is a steady and sure hand at the helm of this ship throughout the course of this 2 hour and 3 minute adventure. While I would have liked her to command the screen more with her presence, she does enough to make it a good, solid, effort.
The supporting cast is just as good. Helena Bonham Carter (FIGHT CLUB) is perfectly cast as Enola's (and Sherlock's and Mycroft's) mother - she has that fierce streak of independence and "don't mess with me" energy while carving her own path. She is the type of character that one would go looking for if she went missing. Sam Claflin (HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE) is finely unrecognizable (at least to me) as Mycroft - written in this piece as the more "traditional" of the Holmes family and Henry Cavill (MAN OF STEEL) brings a strong arrogance to his portrayal of Sherlock. He also brings something else - heart - to this character, a character trait that has "traditional" fans of this character up in arms. For me, it works well in the context of this film.
As for the film itself - it is good (enough). I found myself enjoying the mystery and the characters and enjoyed my time in this world. It's not anything new, but it's like putting on a pair of old shoes - comforting to wear.
This is an adaptation of the first book of the series, and I, for one, hope that there are more. It's a winning combination that was pleasant to watch.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Nemesis in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<b>The Tom Wilde Series</b>
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2780335366">Corpus</a>; - Not Read Yet
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2780335377">Nucleus</a>; - Not Read Yet
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2664038091">Nemesis</a>; - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/New-blog-banner-13.png"/>;
<b><i>Nemesis is the third book from the Tom Wilde series by Rory Clements. I haven't read the previous two books, and I also haven't read any books from Rory Clements before. I received this book through ReadersFirst, and I will be honest, I was quite reluctant to read it. You already know my opinion on reading sequels before reading the previous books - but I went in blind in this book.</i></b>
The blue cover is simply gorgeous and I knew it was a thriller and a mystery, so I decided this was enough to get me going. If this book review ever captures your attention, I advise you to also go in blind. I think going blind made me enjoy this book even more.The fact that this is a third book in a series doesn't mean anything. The only similarity with the other books is the main character. Almost the same basis as Dan Brown's series and his professor Robert Langdon. The books are entirely standalones.
It is very hard to reveal what the plot is about without spoiling the fun. Tom Wilde is a university professor and one of his very talented students, Marcus, has left to join the International Brigades in Spain. Now, two years after, he is in trouble, and Tom helps him come home.
Meanwhile, numerous things happen, involving World War 2 Politics and propaganda, and in these times, no one knows who to trust. And when Tom Wilde finds himself in great danger, who will help him? And who does he needs to be afraid from? Has maybe helping Marcus been his greatest mistake?
Nemesis is full of suspense from the very first chapter, and the thing I loved the most about it was that the chapters are quite short, and always leave you hanging, hungry to find out more. Every word that Rory Clements types had a meaning and a purpose in this book, and that was the bit I admired the most.
The time setting revolves around the Second World War - a subject I don't often read about. I can't judge about the historical fiction element. However I do know that while I am a person that doesn't enjoy war books, this one struck me in a nice way. The war setting was very well written, and you could even feel the atmosphere around it. The ending was pleasantly surprising and it involved a mystery I could simply not resist.
<b>I will definitely read more books by Rory Clements, as I really enjoy the writing. If you enjoy thrillers and if you are a fan of Dan Brown, you will probably enjoy Nemesis a lot!</b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<b>The Tom Wilde Series</b>
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2780335366">Corpus</a>; - Not Read Yet
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2780335377">Nucleus</a>; - Not Read Yet
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2664038091">Nemesis</a>; - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/New-blog-banner-13.png"/>;
<b><i>Nemesis is the third book from the Tom Wilde series by Rory Clements. I haven't read the previous two books, and I also haven't read any books from Rory Clements before. I received this book through ReadersFirst, and I will be honest, I was quite reluctant to read it. You already know my opinion on reading sequels before reading the previous books - but I went in blind in this book.</i></b>
The blue cover is simply gorgeous and I knew it was a thriller and a mystery, so I decided this was enough to get me going. If this book review ever captures your attention, I advise you to also go in blind. I think going blind made me enjoy this book even more.The fact that this is a third book in a series doesn't mean anything. The only similarity with the other books is the main character. Almost the same basis as Dan Brown's series and his professor Robert Langdon. The books are entirely standalones.
It is very hard to reveal what the plot is about without spoiling the fun. Tom Wilde is a university professor and one of his very talented students, Marcus, has left to join the International Brigades in Spain. Now, two years after, he is in trouble, and Tom helps him come home.
Meanwhile, numerous things happen, involving World War 2 Politics and propaganda, and in these times, no one knows who to trust. And when Tom Wilde finds himself in great danger, who will help him? And who does he needs to be afraid from? Has maybe helping Marcus been his greatest mistake?
Nemesis is full of suspense from the very first chapter, and the thing I loved the most about it was that the chapters are quite short, and always leave you hanging, hungry to find out more. Every word that Rory Clements types had a meaning and a purpose in this book, and that was the bit I admired the most.
The time setting revolves around the Second World War - a subject I don't often read about. I can't judge about the historical fiction element. However I do know that while I am a person that doesn't enjoy war books, this one struck me in a nice way. The war setting was very well written, and you could even feel the atmosphere around it. The ending was pleasantly surprising and it involved a mystery I could simply not resist.
<b>I will definitely read more books by Rory Clements, as I really enjoy the writing. If you enjoy thrillers and if you are a fan of Dan Brown, you will probably enjoy Nemesis a lot!</b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Read the best books online
Book and Shopping
App
• Read! - a huge library in Estonian, English, Lithuanian, Latvian, Russian and other languages. ...