Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We are what we believe we are”.
M. Night Shyamalan fizzed into movie consciousness in 1999 with “The Sixth Sense” which – having rewatched it again recently – still has the power to unnerve and impress even after knowing the famous ‘twist’. Since that film and his next, “Unbreakable” in 2000, Shyamalan has ‘done a bit of an Orson Welles’ by never really living up to that early promise. Here with “Split” he returns to better form with a psychological thriller that is heavy on the psycho.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
Rachael Moyes (404 KP) rated The Gospel of Loki in Books
Jul 8, 2017
Fantastic take on the character of Loki
‘The Gospel of Loki’ by Joanne M. Harris is the story of the Norse Gods from the point of view of Loki, the Trickster. I’ve always found Norse Mythology very interesting and Loki is by far my favourite of the Gods. I first heard about this book about a year ago and I finally managed to grab a copy from my local library earlier this week, then proceeded to read the whole book in two days. It was just that good!
Odin rules the nine worlds from his fortress of Asgard. When this book starts his people, the Aesir, have finally made peace with the Vanir and members of both groups make up the Gods of Asgard. The world is split into Order and Chaos, with Odin and the Gods trying to maintain Order over the nine realms. Loki was born from Chaos and is essentially a demon with no physical form (or Aspect) living in the realm of Pandaemoniem under the evil Lord Surt. But Loki was curious about the worlds where Order and Chaos co-existed so he left Chaos and traveled to the worlds above where he gained a physical Aspect, met Odin and was invited back to Asgard where he became the 25th God.
He did not receive a warm welcome from the other Gods, however, and soon lived up to his names of Wildfire and the Trickster. This book, which I would imagine takes place over a number of years, tells the story of many of Loki’s exploits in the nine realms including when he tricked a builder into fortifying Asgard’s walls without paying him, cut off Sif’s golden hair (to Thor’s outrage), got Thor to dress up as a bride to infiltrate the Ice Folk and kill their enemies, met the giants of Utgard and their own Trickster Utgard-Loki, all the way up to Ragnarok and the final battle between Order and Chaos.
Okay, I’ve just tried to describe the plot fairly simply above and I don’t know how much sense it will have made if you’re not familiar with the Norse Gods, but hopefully it wasn’t too bad!
I’ve always found Norse Mythology very interesting, mainly, I think, because of the diverse characters and fanciful stories. We get to meet all those characters in this book; Odin, Thor, Frey, Freyja, Balder, Frigg, Sigyn, Skadi, Gullvieg-Heid & many more. And as this book is written in first person from Loki, we see them all from his point of view. I also loved Loki’s illegitimate children, particularly Hel, the ruler of the Underworld and Fenris the werewolf.
I know a fair bit about Loki from things I’ve read online and books about mythology so I was a bit wary going in about how historically accurate Joanne had written her character, but I have to say that I found her version of Loki spot on! She voiced him perfectly and I also found the other characters to be very close to what I’ve read about them.
I really enjoyed the author’s writing style and the story flowed so well that I found it really difficult to put down. Loki’s storytelling was both informative and engaging and each of his stories flowed into each other very well.
This book is very heavy on the Norse Mythology (obviously) and I think it’s probably best to go into it with a little bit of knowledge beforehand. I think that if I knew nothing of the subject before, I might have found it a bit overwhelming mainly due to the amount of characters and worlds. But saying that, it is so well written and well explained that I think anyone could read it, I just think you’d get more enjoyment out of it if you knew a bit about some of the characters first. There is a very useful character list at the beginning that you can go back to.
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who loves Norse Mythology, especially Loki and Odin but I think anyone who likes a good fantasy novel would enjoy it :)
Odin rules the nine worlds from his fortress of Asgard. When this book starts his people, the Aesir, have finally made peace with the Vanir and members of both groups make up the Gods of Asgard. The world is split into Order and Chaos, with Odin and the Gods trying to maintain Order over the nine realms. Loki was born from Chaos and is essentially a demon with no physical form (or Aspect) living in the realm of Pandaemoniem under the evil Lord Surt. But Loki was curious about the worlds where Order and Chaos co-existed so he left Chaos and traveled to the worlds above where he gained a physical Aspect, met Odin and was invited back to Asgard where he became the 25th God.
He did not receive a warm welcome from the other Gods, however, and soon lived up to his names of Wildfire and the Trickster. This book, which I would imagine takes place over a number of years, tells the story of many of Loki’s exploits in the nine realms including when he tricked a builder into fortifying Asgard’s walls without paying him, cut off Sif’s golden hair (to Thor’s outrage), got Thor to dress up as a bride to infiltrate the Ice Folk and kill their enemies, met the giants of Utgard and their own Trickster Utgard-Loki, all the way up to Ragnarok and the final battle between Order and Chaos.
Okay, I’ve just tried to describe the plot fairly simply above and I don’t know how much sense it will have made if you’re not familiar with the Norse Gods, but hopefully it wasn’t too bad!
I’ve always found Norse Mythology very interesting, mainly, I think, because of the diverse characters and fanciful stories. We get to meet all those characters in this book; Odin, Thor, Frey, Freyja, Balder, Frigg, Sigyn, Skadi, Gullvieg-Heid & many more. And as this book is written in first person from Loki, we see them all from his point of view. I also loved Loki’s illegitimate children, particularly Hel, the ruler of the Underworld and Fenris the werewolf.
I know a fair bit about Loki from things I’ve read online and books about mythology so I was a bit wary going in about how historically accurate Joanne had written her character, but I have to say that I found her version of Loki spot on! She voiced him perfectly and I also found the other characters to be very close to what I’ve read about them.
I really enjoyed the author’s writing style and the story flowed so well that I found it really difficult to put down. Loki’s storytelling was both informative and engaging and each of his stories flowed into each other very well.
This book is very heavy on the Norse Mythology (obviously) and I think it’s probably best to go into it with a little bit of knowledge beforehand. I think that if I knew nothing of the subject before, I might have found it a bit overwhelming mainly due to the amount of characters and worlds. But saying that, it is so well written and well explained that I think anyone could read it, I just think you’d get more enjoyment out of it if you knew a bit about some of the characters first. There is a very useful character list at the beginning that you can go back to.
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who loves Norse Mythology, especially Loki and Odin but I think anyone who likes a good fantasy novel would enjoy it :)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Salt (2010) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Disappointing 80's retread...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Salt. The trailer looked rubbish, dated and starring Angelina Jolie, was never going to tickle my fancy. Reminding me of Rodger Donaldson's, Kevin Costner starrer, No Way Out, I felt that the attempt may be to bring that 80′s thriller to a new audience but instead we got a very confused tome. Firstly, I will cover the good points, which start with the script.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Resistance: Avalon in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Do you appreciate your friends and your relationships with them? If so, please read no further. Do you want to dissolve your friendships and cause your family members to wonder what went wrong with you and never trust you again? Play The Resistance: Avalon with them.
The Resistance: Avalon (which we always just refer to as simply Avalon) is a game of hidden roles played over several rounds where the “good guys” from King Arthur’s court are pitted against the “bad guys” in Mordred’s thrall. The number of players at the table determines the number of players to be assigned to the good and bad guys squads and the required goals for victory for each team.
To begin, role cards are divvied up and players secretly find out which team they are on for the game. Blue background cards are good guys, red are bad guys. ALERT! Yes, already. I cannot tell you how many times games have been voided because a player was not quite sure what team they were on, so make sure your players know what’s up before continuing. From here a narrator player reads the script in the rulebook to give instructions to players with their eyes closed (a la Mafia or Werewolf). This allows different members of each team to know certain information about their own team or even the opposite team. Players are then instructed to open their eyes simultaneously and thus begins the game of facades.
A player is chosen at random to be the quest giver for now. This person then assigns other players to go on a quest. The “quest” is just a generic quest where it will either succeed or fail. Once the quest giver has made their choices, everyone at the table has a chance to vote to approve the quest team or deny the quest team. Simple majority vote wins. If the team is approved, the quest happens. If the team is denied, the next player in the circle becomes the quest giver and must create a new team of players to go questing.
Once approved, the quest team players are each given two cards: Success and Fail. Secretly, under the table works best, the players make their choices. ALERT! All good guys MUST CHOOSE SUCCESS CARDS so the quest can succeed. Bad guys can choose either one. The questers then pass their cards to an uninvolved player who will then shuffle the cards without looking at them. Once completed, the cards are revealed and thus the success or failure of the quest. If all cards are Success, then the quest was a success and the good guys mark this on the main board. If even just one Fail card appears the quest fails and the bad guys mark it on the main board. This continues until either the good guys win or the bad guys claim victory!
Components. The box is small (akin to the Tiny Epic size boxes). I’m not sure if the game comes with an insert because I won mine from a BGG auction. The cards included in the game are fine, and I sleeved mine because they get held quite a bit. The other miscellaneous tokens are nice and do the job well. This is a game that is less reliant on components, and much more so on game play.
If my intro seemed dark a foreboding, it was completely intentional. Have I witnessed friendships dissolving as a result of this game? Ok not entirely, but there have been some pretty amazing head turns and surprise reveals coupled with slapping and yelling. Not me, mind you, but others. In any case, this game is definitely one to check out if you are a fan of hidden role games and if you want to add tons of tension to your game night. I honestly have no idea why this game (or its older sibling The Resistance if you are more into that theme) isn’t in every game collection. Yes, I know, there are now TONS of hidden role games out there. But this is my favorite of the lot. By far.
We at Purple Phoenix Games are split somehow, giving this one 18 / 24. Obviously it is because Josh is a minion of Mordred and wants our review to fail.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/04/24/the-resistance-avalon-review/
The Resistance: Avalon (which we always just refer to as simply Avalon) is a game of hidden roles played over several rounds where the “good guys” from King Arthur’s court are pitted against the “bad guys” in Mordred’s thrall. The number of players at the table determines the number of players to be assigned to the good and bad guys squads and the required goals for victory for each team.
To begin, role cards are divvied up and players secretly find out which team they are on for the game. Blue background cards are good guys, red are bad guys. ALERT! Yes, already. I cannot tell you how many times games have been voided because a player was not quite sure what team they were on, so make sure your players know what’s up before continuing. From here a narrator player reads the script in the rulebook to give instructions to players with their eyes closed (a la Mafia or Werewolf). This allows different members of each team to know certain information about their own team or even the opposite team. Players are then instructed to open their eyes simultaneously and thus begins the game of facades.
A player is chosen at random to be the quest giver for now. This person then assigns other players to go on a quest. The “quest” is just a generic quest where it will either succeed or fail. Once the quest giver has made their choices, everyone at the table has a chance to vote to approve the quest team or deny the quest team. Simple majority vote wins. If the team is approved, the quest happens. If the team is denied, the next player in the circle becomes the quest giver and must create a new team of players to go questing.
Once approved, the quest team players are each given two cards: Success and Fail. Secretly, under the table works best, the players make their choices. ALERT! All good guys MUST CHOOSE SUCCESS CARDS so the quest can succeed. Bad guys can choose either one. The questers then pass their cards to an uninvolved player who will then shuffle the cards without looking at them. Once completed, the cards are revealed and thus the success or failure of the quest. If all cards are Success, then the quest was a success and the good guys mark this on the main board. If even just one Fail card appears the quest fails and the bad guys mark it on the main board. This continues until either the good guys win or the bad guys claim victory!
Components. The box is small (akin to the Tiny Epic size boxes). I’m not sure if the game comes with an insert because I won mine from a BGG auction. The cards included in the game are fine, and I sleeved mine because they get held quite a bit. The other miscellaneous tokens are nice and do the job well. This is a game that is less reliant on components, and much more so on game play.
If my intro seemed dark a foreboding, it was completely intentional. Have I witnessed friendships dissolving as a result of this game? Ok not entirely, but there have been some pretty amazing head turns and surprise reveals coupled with slapping and yelling. Not me, mind you, but others. In any case, this game is definitely one to check out if you are a fan of hidden role games and if you want to add tons of tension to your game night. I honestly have no idea why this game (or its older sibling The Resistance if you are more into that theme) isn’t in every game collection. Yes, I know, there are now TONS of hidden role games out there. But this is my favorite of the lot. By far.
We at Purple Phoenix Games are split somehow, giving this one 18 / 24. Obviously it is because Josh is a minion of Mordred and wants our review to fail.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/04/24/the-resistance-avalon-review/
Cassie Osbourne (6 KP) rated Ace of Shades (The Shadow Game, #1) in Books
Nov 9, 2018
Prim and proper Enne Salta is looking forward to her graduation from finishing school when her adoptive mother goes missing in New Reynes, otherwise known as the City of Sin. In an effort to find her, she must rely on the help and street smarts of gambler Levi Glaisyer. I think that it is safe to say that the blurb of this book caught me by the nose and I couldn't wait to read it so moving into a new house where there was no internet to distract me seemed as good an opportunity as any.
This book starts pretty slowly, or rather it tries to be interesting while still explaining the quite complex world and history since the Great Street War (which we actually know very little about) as well as introducing all the different characters and their blood talents and split talents. Even writing that sentence has made my head spin a little, and I've read the book! However, at about page 200 or 250 it really starts to pick up. Suddenly all the information and repetition (more on that later) starts to fall into place, and the plot and characters get SO much more interesting. Until that point though, it's all a bit meh.
With the exception of Chez, I have to say that I loved all the characters. I liked Levi pretty much from his first chapter, the villains were very cool, manipulative and all round imposing even without being in the book that much and all the rest of the characters got better as the book progressed (most notably Enne who becomes a complete badass). There's even a sequel, so perhaps Chez will grow on me after all. I would just like to add here that I love Jac and I want to have his babies.
The atmosphere, for the most part, was very meh. A lot of it was kind of bland and non-descript, which is not really something that you'd expect from a place called 'the City of Sin'. That being said, when Foody really goes for it on the atmosphere, she gets it pretty well spot on! The atmosphere during the second fight with Chez, the basement in the House of Shadows and pretty much any scene with Torren are all winners. It's just a shame that it wasn't that way for the whole book because Foody has proved that she can do it really well.
The writing style was good on the whole, but there were definitely two things that irritated me with it. I mentioned earlier that the first 200 pages have a lot of repetition, but it goes beyond merely parroting things that we already know. Sometimes whole sections of text are repeated from other chapters which I would be completely behind if it was used to offer a different perspective, but it wasn't. Reading these bits just felt like they had been copied and pasted, so it became redundant and annoying. The other problem which became hugely distracting (and which I have seen other people commenting about) is the use of 'muck' or 'mucking' instead of actual swearing. This is a young adult book with drugs and prostitutes in it and where words like 'piss' and 'ass' are used pretty commonly so when 'muck' appears (often said by a Street Lord), the reader can't help but groan. The sort of swearing and sort of not just really doesn't work. Pick a camp and stick to it!
As with the intrigue of the book, the plot got much better as it went along, with new twists and turns and plot points added to it along the way. Unlike the intrigue though, the plot was good from the beginning.
The logic was pretty good most of the time, but there were some notable moments (all heavily for the plot) that I just did not buy. This also kind of ties in with the whole 'muck' thing as well. It just takes you right out of the world.
All in all, I did enjoy this book, and I have to say that my biggest disappointment is that I have to wait another year for the sequel to come out.
Characters: 8/10
Atmosphere: 7/10
Writing Style: 7/10
Plot: 8.5/10
Intrigue: 7.5/10
Logic: 7.5/10
Enjoyment: 8/10
This book starts pretty slowly, or rather it tries to be interesting while still explaining the quite complex world and history since the Great Street War (which we actually know very little about) as well as introducing all the different characters and their blood talents and split talents. Even writing that sentence has made my head spin a little, and I've read the book! However, at about page 200 or 250 it really starts to pick up. Suddenly all the information and repetition (more on that later) starts to fall into place, and the plot and characters get SO much more interesting. Until that point though, it's all a bit meh.
With the exception of Chez, I have to say that I loved all the characters. I liked Levi pretty much from his first chapter, the villains were very cool, manipulative and all round imposing even without being in the book that much and all the rest of the characters got better as the book progressed (most notably Enne who becomes a complete badass). There's even a sequel, so perhaps Chez will grow on me after all. I would just like to add here that I love Jac and I want to have his babies.
The atmosphere, for the most part, was very meh. A lot of it was kind of bland and non-descript, which is not really something that you'd expect from a place called 'the City of Sin'. That being said, when Foody really goes for it on the atmosphere, she gets it pretty well spot on! The atmosphere during the second fight with Chez, the basement in the House of Shadows and pretty much any scene with Torren are all winners. It's just a shame that it wasn't that way for the whole book because Foody has proved that she can do it really well.
The writing style was good on the whole, but there were definitely two things that irritated me with it. I mentioned earlier that the first 200 pages have a lot of repetition, but it goes beyond merely parroting things that we already know. Sometimes whole sections of text are repeated from other chapters which I would be completely behind if it was used to offer a different perspective, but it wasn't. Reading these bits just felt like they had been copied and pasted, so it became redundant and annoying. The other problem which became hugely distracting (and which I have seen other people commenting about) is the use of 'muck' or 'mucking' instead of actual swearing. This is a young adult book with drugs and prostitutes in it and where words like 'piss' and 'ass' are used pretty commonly so when 'muck' appears (often said by a Street Lord), the reader can't help but groan. The sort of swearing and sort of not just really doesn't work. Pick a camp and stick to it!
As with the intrigue of the book, the plot got much better as it went along, with new twists and turns and plot points added to it along the way. Unlike the intrigue though, the plot was good from the beginning.
The logic was pretty good most of the time, but there were some notable moments (all heavily for the plot) that I just did not buy. This also kind of ties in with the whole 'muck' thing as well. It just takes you right out of the world.
All in all, I did enjoy this book, and I have to say that my biggest disappointment is that I have to wait another year for the sequel to come out.
Characters: 8/10
Atmosphere: 7/10
Writing Style: 7/10
Plot: 8.5/10
Intrigue: 7.5/10
Logic: 7.5/10
Enjoyment: 8/10
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
For years, mankind has pondered over the existence of ghosts, demons and the paranormal. Many have claimed to have experienced it firsthand, while others dedicate their lives and careers to debunking those experiences. It seems to be a question that no one has been able to answer or prove one way or the other, and this fear of the unknown has been the basis of a number of popular horror stories.
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Danish director Lars Von Trier is no stranger to controversy. He has certainly divided film fans with some praising his work and some condemning it. The House That Jack Built is his most recent creation, causing audience members at Cannes to either walk out in disgust or stand up and applaud. This seriously mixed reception caught my interest and I wanted to find out what he’d done to generate such a response.
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alone in the Dark (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: I am going to first look at this only as a story, no opinions on the CGI or casting choices. If you were to look at the story as a solo idea you get a solid action horror. Now I hear people going ‘no its just crap’ so let’s look at the details. First off we have an idea of scientific experiment on children to create sleepers, but something goes wrong so we don’t see why it happened until more discoveries in the future. Then we have a search for hidden treasures of a lost ancient people. Add in a paranormal investigator, a secret government paranormal investigating team and the search for a truth. Now looking at those factors we should have a good story not special but enjoyable. Now with terrible casting decisions, awful CGI and a script that could have been written but a child everything goes south fast. As an idea for a story this is good, but as an execution of a story it’s bad. (5/10)
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Ross (3282 KP) rated Cold Iron (Masters & Mages #1) in Books
Jan 22, 2019
Elaborate prose and an unsettling amount of "wait and see" damaged my enjoyment
This book feels like your standard coming-of-age fantasy - young man from a simple village finds himself in the big city destined for greatness and surrounds himself with strong watchers while he grows into his potential. It is that and it is so much more.
The story that is told is how Aranthur, this young man (selected from his village to attend the big city university) finds himself in the midst of conflict and significant events in the empire's changing status. The idea of fate dictating that this one man would be at the centre of things (see Wheel of Time) is not one that is explored here. While it is hinted at (he is frequently told off for ending up in unusual circumstances), it isn't overly laboured. Nobody tells him he was chosen or anything like that. Instead he gradually learns that he has found himself at the centre of political intrigue, plotting, counter-plotting, conspiracies and war.
This book is not about Aranthur. He is just the focal point of the book, the story is so much bigger than him. This meant it did at times become a little hard to take that he always just happened to meet the right person, go to the right place at the right time in order to witness or participate in a number of significant plot events. In hindsight, this is largely all explained as some hidden agenda and him being put in those places to make those decisions but at the time it was a little jarring.
The narrative is more akin to Robert Jordan than many contemporary writers - so much overly elaborate description of people, places, clothes, horses, weapons etc. At times this adds to the reading experience but I found it over-used and made the book feel like a much longer read (I was shocked when I found out it was just under 450 pages - it reads like around 700). Also, so much of the narrative is in either italics (to show it is a magic/majick/magik delete as appropriate) or is in some odd variation of French ("gonne" for gun, "quaveh" for coffee etc) to become irritating. At times the book is more like a decent fantasy tale or conspiracy and intrigue which has been edited by a historical re-enactment nut. Given this is fictional and the world is the author's to do with as he wishes, forcing some historical accuracy at the expense of reader enjoyment seemed an odd decision to make.
The magical system seems fairly standard fantasy fayre, albeit it is not described or explored in any detail, people just suddenly do things which haven't previously been mentioned. A large aspect of the book is Aranthur's being chosen to translate an ancient text to decode the magical secrets hidden there. I think in all he decodes three of these, and uses them, but there is no mention of them until he has to use them in a fight. It could just be that I have been reading a lot of LitRPG recently, where every spell is described in intimate detail and its uses are discussed way in advance of being needed in combat, but I felt like it was something of an afterthought or rescue from a plot dead-end ("oh sod it, say he done a magic").
While I did enjoy this book on the whole, the narrative style and the focus being on clothes rather than describing the interesting aspects of the world were to its detriment. Also, the book is written as two "books" (chapters), the first "book" covers around 80% and all in one long chapter without breaks. To my mind, ending there would have sufficed. The final 20% in "book 2" felt like part epilogue, part sequel and should maybe have been split as such.
My advice to anyone reading this, is to suspend disbelief that little bit further and trust that things do largely get explained satisfactorily before the end.
The story that is told is how Aranthur, this young man (selected from his village to attend the big city university) finds himself in the midst of conflict and significant events in the empire's changing status. The idea of fate dictating that this one man would be at the centre of things (see Wheel of Time) is not one that is explored here. While it is hinted at (he is frequently told off for ending up in unusual circumstances), it isn't overly laboured. Nobody tells him he was chosen or anything like that. Instead he gradually learns that he has found himself at the centre of political intrigue, plotting, counter-plotting, conspiracies and war.
This book is not about Aranthur. He is just the focal point of the book, the story is so much bigger than him. This meant it did at times become a little hard to take that he always just happened to meet the right person, go to the right place at the right time in order to witness or participate in a number of significant plot events. In hindsight, this is largely all explained as some hidden agenda and him being put in those places to make those decisions but at the time it was a little jarring.
The narrative is more akin to Robert Jordan than many contemporary writers - so much overly elaborate description of people, places, clothes, horses, weapons etc. At times this adds to the reading experience but I found it over-used and made the book feel like a much longer read (I was shocked when I found out it was just under 450 pages - it reads like around 700). Also, so much of the narrative is in either italics (to show it is a magic/majick/magik delete as appropriate) or is in some odd variation of French ("gonne" for gun, "quaveh" for coffee etc) to become irritating. At times the book is more like a decent fantasy tale or conspiracy and intrigue which has been edited by a historical re-enactment nut. Given this is fictional and the world is the author's to do with as he wishes, forcing some historical accuracy at the expense of reader enjoyment seemed an odd decision to make.
The magical system seems fairly standard fantasy fayre, albeit it is not described or explored in any detail, people just suddenly do things which haven't previously been mentioned. A large aspect of the book is Aranthur's being chosen to translate an ancient text to decode the magical secrets hidden there. I think in all he decodes three of these, and uses them, but there is no mention of them until he has to use them in a fight. It could just be that I have been reading a lot of LitRPG recently, where every spell is described in intimate detail and its uses are discussed way in advance of being needed in combat, but I felt like it was something of an afterthought or rescue from a plot dead-end ("oh sod it, say he done a magic").
While I did enjoy this book on the whole, the narrative style and the focus being on clothes rather than describing the interesting aspects of the world were to its detriment. Also, the book is written as two "books" (chapters), the first "book" covers around 80% and all in one long chapter without breaks. To my mind, ending there would have sufficed. The final 20% in "book 2" felt like part epilogue, part sequel and should maybe have been split as such.
My advice to anyone reading this, is to suspend disbelief that little bit further and trust that things do largely get explained satisfactorily before the end.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Black and Blue (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Having seen the film I can confidently say that this has been woefully under screened. Just one screening at my local, luckily at the sensible time of 17.20 every day. Looking at other times it's getting relegated to some late slots which is never good.
Alicia West has come back to her home town and joined the local police department after being deployed. It's not the neighbourhood she remembers, there's distrust and gangs everywhere she looks, even her old friend pretends not to know her.
Taking a double shift as a favour to her partner she goes out on patrol with Officer Brown, he's old school and not going to change his ways... they don't see eye to eye. He takes a private call and says they need to go on a call so he cn meet a CI. He orders her to stay in the car and she waits suspiciously until two shots ring out. She enters the building to investigate, body cam turned on, and comes across a group of police officers who have executed members of a local gang. Thinking on instinct they shoot at her which allows her to escape. She needs to get the footage uploaded to expose the corruption but between her and the station are corrupt police officers and a community that hates cops. Who can she trust?
I found Black And Blue to be a really enjoyable. The action was tense and the story had a consistent pace all the way through and I felt really gripped as I watched it. My only disappointment was that they gave it sickly sweet ending. It brought the story full circle for West but it was so out of place with what we'd already seen. It wasn't necessary and I feel like it detracted from the effort everything else put in.
Naomie Harris is our lead and she handles the role like a seasoned pro. She brings across the optimism of West's character and you can see the intrigue and sadness in her as she realises just how bad things have become in her neighbourhood. Harris adapts well to each scenario and at times you could feel a genuine sense of fear as she's being pursued.
Frank Grillo plays Terry Malone, the leader of our group of corrupt cops. He's a great bit of casting. Towards the end I feel like the character deviates a little from what I might have expected but the performance was so good to watch that I wasn't too bothered by that.
Another face you'll recognise is Mike Colter as Darius, Darius is the head of one of the local gangs and during the course of the story he's also hot on West's heals. He's a very dark character and Colter captures that well, there's a particularly good scene with West where we're preparing for the finale of the film and the way he changes in his split second decisions really elevates the moment.
The last actor I'll mention is Tyrese Gibson as Milo, Milo brings a much softer side to the whole story, he's not about the violence and I think that Gibson had the perfect demeanour for this role. We get some much needed respite from the heavy tension and action with his scenes. I feel like there's some back story we needed to know for him though, he needed some more explaining and that was just missing in everything we saw.
Black And Blue has a strong message about society divided by hate, I'm not the right person to tell ou its accuracy. There are stereotypes knocking around all over the place but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The film focused on the corruption in the neighbourhood and that's what you see, you wouldn't be getting other walks of life so it fits the idea perfectly.
I genuinely enjoyed watching this and the film kept me on the edge of my seat, this it something I'll look forward to watching again.
What you should do
If you like crime drama then I think you'll enjoy this, there's good action and great characters.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of West's kickass moves and super human will to survive.
Alicia West has come back to her home town and joined the local police department after being deployed. It's not the neighbourhood she remembers, there's distrust and gangs everywhere she looks, even her old friend pretends not to know her.
Taking a double shift as a favour to her partner she goes out on patrol with Officer Brown, he's old school and not going to change his ways... they don't see eye to eye. He takes a private call and says they need to go on a call so he cn meet a CI. He orders her to stay in the car and she waits suspiciously until two shots ring out. She enters the building to investigate, body cam turned on, and comes across a group of police officers who have executed members of a local gang. Thinking on instinct they shoot at her which allows her to escape. She needs to get the footage uploaded to expose the corruption but between her and the station are corrupt police officers and a community that hates cops. Who can she trust?
I found Black And Blue to be a really enjoyable. The action was tense and the story had a consistent pace all the way through and I felt really gripped as I watched it. My only disappointment was that they gave it sickly sweet ending. It brought the story full circle for West but it was so out of place with what we'd already seen. It wasn't necessary and I feel like it detracted from the effort everything else put in.
Naomie Harris is our lead and she handles the role like a seasoned pro. She brings across the optimism of West's character and you can see the intrigue and sadness in her as she realises just how bad things have become in her neighbourhood. Harris adapts well to each scenario and at times you could feel a genuine sense of fear as she's being pursued.
Frank Grillo plays Terry Malone, the leader of our group of corrupt cops. He's a great bit of casting. Towards the end I feel like the character deviates a little from what I might have expected but the performance was so good to watch that I wasn't too bothered by that.
Another face you'll recognise is Mike Colter as Darius, Darius is the head of one of the local gangs and during the course of the story he's also hot on West's heals. He's a very dark character and Colter captures that well, there's a particularly good scene with West where we're preparing for the finale of the film and the way he changes in his split second decisions really elevates the moment.
The last actor I'll mention is Tyrese Gibson as Milo, Milo brings a much softer side to the whole story, he's not about the violence and I think that Gibson had the perfect demeanour for this role. We get some much needed respite from the heavy tension and action with his scenes. I feel like there's some back story we needed to know for him though, he needed some more explaining and that was just missing in everything we saw.
Black And Blue has a strong message about society divided by hate, I'm not the right person to tell ou its accuracy. There are stereotypes knocking around all over the place but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The film focused on the corruption in the neighbourhood and that's what you see, you wouldn't be getting other walks of life so it fits the idea perfectly.
I genuinely enjoyed watching this and the film kept me on the edge of my seat, this it something I'll look forward to watching again.
What you should do
If you like crime drama then I think you'll enjoy this, there's good action and great characters.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of West's kickass moves and super human will to survive.
