Search
Search results
Toca Life: City
Education and Entertainment
9.0
Rate It
App
Welcome to Toca Life: City, a metropolis filled with everyday fun! Customize characters, explore...
Andy K (10823 KP) rated What We Left Behind: Looking Back at Deep Space Nine (2018) in Movies
Jul 23, 2019
Where would we be without DS9?
Maybe the best Trek of all time?
Sisko, Odo, Kira, O'Brien, Dax, Quark, Bashir and the rest of the massive cast brought Star Trek to life as never before in this vastly different "station"ary style of Trek.
At the time, syndication was where it was at for reruns and additional revenue for a TV program. DS9 bucked the trend of wrapping up everything within one episode and began a TV serial which pretty much ran almost the entire run, much to the dismay of studio executives. Nowadays, shows like The Walking Dead, Lost, or Game of Thrones do this every week, but in the mid 90s this was not common.
Sandwiched in between The Next Generation and Voyager, DS9 did not get a lot of respect during its initial run at all. Also at that time, Trek TNG movies were in full swing so the show had to compete with that as well. Television stations would often preempt the show, skip a week or run the show in the early morning hours which made it even harder for its audience to keep track of the action.
DS9 certainly got a 2nd life with the current popularity of "binge watching" on your favorite streaming service. Having the ability to watch multi-part episodes or entire seasons within a few weeks brought back to life the en genius writing, acting and production quality of the series.
For this documentary, former showrunner Ira Steven Behr took several years worth of cast, crew and fan interviews, clips, behind the scenes footage and compiled a wonderful interesting film for any Trek fan. Many cast members major and minor as well as producers, writers and tech workers told tales of working on the show and how they very much enjoyed their time.
Throughout the many iterations of Trek, original creator Gene Roddenberry felt the show should entertain as well as provide social commentary on the issues of the time and DS9 was no exception. Throughout the show's 7 year run they dealt with issues such as racism, homelessness, same sex relationships and even genetic engineering.
One of the most fun subplots of the film was gathering the show's original writers in a room to formulate the first episode for the fictitious "Season 8" which will never actually happen (although I wish it would). The ideas, plot points and arcs they went through and came up with were extremely interesting, keep with the high level of writing the show originally produced, but also through us a few curveballs with some fun surprises.
Through the cast interviews we got to hear how the crew got along, some of their favorite and least favorite episodes and even the friendships they have maintained with one another.
The DVD set I received also had included a vast assortment of additional footage featuring even more nuggets and stories of what made the show great.
Overall, this film was one of the best documentaries I have ever seen about one of my favorite television programs in my lifetime. I might have to start binge watching the show again very soon.
Did I mention my name appears in the end credits?!? đ
Sisko, Odo, Kira, O'Brien, Dax, Quark, Bashir and the rest of the massive cast brought Star Trek to life as never before in this vastly different "station"ary style of Trek.
At the time, syndication was where it was at for reruns and additional revenue for a TV program. DS9 bucked the trend of wrapping up everything within one episode and began a TV serial which pretty much ran almost the entire run, much to the dismay of studio executives. Nowadays, shows like The Walking Dead, Lost, or Game of Thrones do this every week, but in the mid 90s this was not common.
Sandwiched in between The Next Generation and Voyager, DS9 did not get a lot of respect during its initial run at all. Also at that time, Trek TNG movies were in full swing so the show had to compete with that as well. Television stations would often preempt the show, skip a week or run the show in the early morning hours which made it even harder for its audience to keep track of the action.
DS9 certainly got a 2nd life with the current popularity of "binge watching" on your favorite streaming service. Having the ability to watch multi-part episodes or entire seasons within a few weeks brought back to life the en genius writing, acting and production quality of the series.
For this documentary, former showrunner Ira Steven Behr took several years worth of cast, crew and fan interviews, clips, behind the scenes footage and compiled a wonderful interesting film for any Trek fan. Many cast members major and minor as well as producers, writers and tech workers told tales of working on the show and how they very much enjoyed their time.
Throughout the many iterations of Trek, original creator Gene Roddenberry felt the show should entertain as well as provide social commentary on the issues of the time and DS9 was no exception. Throughout the show's 7 year run they dealt with issues such as racism, homelessness, same sex relationships and even genetic engineering.
One of the most fun subplots of the film was gathering the show's original writers in a room to formulate the first episode for the fictitious "Season 8" which will never actually happen (although I wish it would). The ideas, plot points and arcs they went through and came up with were extremely interesting, keep with the high level of writing the show originally produced, but also through us a few curveballs with some fun surprises.
Through the cast interviews we got to hear how the crew got along, some of their favorite and least favorite episodes and even the friendships they have maintained with one another.
The DVD set I received also had included a vast assortment of additional footage featuring even more nuggets and stories of what made the show great.
Overall, this film was one of the best documentaries I have ever seen about one of my favorite television programs in my lifetime. I might have to start binge watching the show again very soon.
Did I mention my name appears in the end credits?!? đ
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The phenomenon of âtrue crimeâ as entertainment is disturbing. What we are saying when we subscribe to watch these compellingly morbid shows is that, of course, we donât âenjoyâ or condone the crimes themselves. But, we do increasingly expect that without the grotesque detail of primary crime scene evidence, documented visually, we can switch over to another show that will give us our macabre kick. So, it is a dangerous precedent to say that without that factor we wonât engage.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about itâŚ
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of ârealityâ show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no donât do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesnât want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding âtruthâ for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about itâŚ
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of ârealityâ show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no donât do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesnât want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding âtruthâ for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Buster's Mal Heart (2016) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Remember before the digital revolution and on demand TV channels when you had to stay up late and watch the films shown after midnight to see anything outside of the mainstream? Quite often they were awful, cheap, rambling experiences that maybe had one or two memorable scenes, or something so weird that you had to find out if any of your friends had seen it. Well, this is one of those films, except it was made in 2017 and I saw it in 2020 on Netflix.
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasnât quite made it yet, so you probably havenât heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but thatâs about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on â but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesnât know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which⌠ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isnât really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as âshowing potentialâ. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasnât quite made it yet, so you probably havenât heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but thatâs about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on â but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesnât know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which⌠ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isnât really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as âshowing potentialâ. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
Worms⢠3
Games and Entertainment
App
90% - "Gold Award" - "Worms 3 is, quite frankly, one of the most accomplished multiplayer...
PlayKids - Cartoons for kids
Education and Entertainment
App
PlayKids is the #1 childrenâs app in more than 25 countries. Kid Safe Toddler App. Kids and...
RÉX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman: The Movie (1966) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019 (Updated Feb 18, 2019)
Some days, you just canât get rid of a bomb!
Before the Frank Millerâs Dark Knight, there was the Caped Crusader; The founding member of the Dynamic Duo, Batman and his ward, the Boy Wonder, Robin. In order to promote the series, after Batmanâs first season, a theatrical version was green-lit. Bigger and longer than any of the soon to be syndicated TV show, which would ultimately run for three seasons, Batman was on the big screen with âall his wonderful toysâ and a whole host of new ones.
Welcome, the Bat Ladder, Bat-boat, Bat-copter and of course the Bat Shark Repellent! The wry humour can easily be dismissed as hammy and cheap, but in fact, this incarnation of Batman struck a cord and ran with it with confidence. And in this era of The Dark Knight, Batman Light is a welcome respite from all the dower self flagellation of the character.
The late Adam West and Burt Ward are as dry as ever as they over act and dramatically fight crime against a collection of cartoon villains, with this movie delivering the most popular, The Joker (Caesar Romero), Catwoman (Lee Meriwether), The Riddler (Frank Gorshin, all of whom have been brought together by Burgess Meredithâs, Penguin.
Fun from start to finish, with Batman gags, satirical humour and out and out farce! (The bomb gag is classic!) An outrageous plot involving dehydrating the UN Security Council is delivered at a breakneck pace, with one set piece being delivered after another. It is hard to imagine that so much happens in such a lean running time. This is a smart comedy with does not out stay its welcome.
And that is the thing with Batman (1966); It is a smart comedy posing a piece of nonsense. A point proven by its popularity 50 years on. If anything, the recent Lego Batman Movie plays the same hand, only it gets away with it because its a kids Lego digi-mation. But the humour is very similar, irreverently honouring their source.
If you have not seen this in years and god forbid, not at all then get yourselfâŚ
âŚâto the Batmobile!â
Welcome, the Bat Ladder, Bat-boat, Bat-copter and of course the Bat Shark Repellent! The wry humour can easily be dismissed as hammy and cheap, but in fact, this incarnation of Batman struck a cord and ran with it with confidence. And in this era of The Dark Knight, Batman Light is a welcome respite from all the dower self flagellation of the character.
The late Adam West and Burt Ward are as dry as ever as they over act and dramatically fight crime against a collection of cartoon villains, with this movie delivering the most popular, The Joker (Caesar Romero), Catwoman (Lee Meriwether), The Riddler (Frank Gorshin, all of whom have been brought together by Burgess Meredithâs, Penguin.
Fun from start to finish, with Batman gags, satirical humour and out and out farce! (The bomb gag is classic!) An outrageous plot involving dehydrating the UN Security Council is delivered at a breakneck pace, with one set piece being delivered after another. It is hard to imagine that so much happens in such a lean running time. This is a smart comedy with does not out stay its welcome.
And that is the thing with Batman (1966); It is a smart comedy posing a piece of nonsense. A point proven by its popularity 50 years on. If anything, the recent Lego Batman Movie plays the same hand, only it gets away with it because its a kids Lego digi-mation. But the humour is very similar, irreverently honouring their source.
If you have not seen this in years and god forbid, not at all then get yourselfâŚ
âŚâto the Batmobile!â
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Blood Crescent in Books
Jun 5, 2019
In this magical, and quite ambitious, story Stevie McCoy delves into the mystical world of
Blood Crescent where main character realises her missing mother may still be alive and her own life is not what she thought it was. Big time! What they wanted from her mother, they now want from her. But who are âtheyâ?
To begin with Blood Crescent has a surreal, hazy, yet mystical feel to it, as the mysterious Crystal slowly comes to grips with what is happening to her forcing her to embark on a fantastical and multi-layered journey of self-discovery and adventure.
As the story unfolded, I was transported into another realm where I met some amazing characters. Angel Aishlin with her witchy ways, and the (adorable) anti-hero Victor are just two characters who leapt right out of the pages and into my heart! Not only that, but I felt that this is ventured into the vampire world with a unique slant. Youâve heard of people being called âemotional vampiresâ right? There the sort of people who drain your energy by just being in the same room as them, because theyâre for some reason, negative or miserable. Well this book takes that idea and runs with it. Like energy draining vampires who can suck out any goodness in your aura, just because they can. But of course, in this world itâs not that simple. And for good reason, too!
Overall I have the feeling this is the start of a vast universe, with complex rules and therefore has the capacity to branch off in so many directions, this could the first of a long-running series, and would make great viewing on the box. In fact, I watched these characters play out their roles in my head as if it were already on the TV! Thereâs an intense, dark atmosphere to this story where the surreal meets a reality not unlike our own⌠if we are to believe thereâs more to life than what we can see. And why shouldnât there be?
A rich tapestry of characters in a world where there is so much more to be discovered. Iâm looking forward to continuing this adventure!
Blood Crescent where main character realises her missing mother may still be alive and her own life is not what she thought it was. Big time! What they wanted from her mother, they now want from her. But who are âtheyâ?
To begin with Blood Crescent has a surreal, hazy, yet mystical feel to it, as the mysterious Crystal slowly comes to grips with what is happening to her forcing her to embark on a fantastical and multi-layered journey of self-discovery and adventure.
As the story unfolded, I was transported into another realm where I met some amazing characters. Angel Aishlin with her witchy ways, and the (adorable) anti-hero Victor are just two characters who leapt right out of the pages and into my heart! Not only that, but I felt that this is ventured into the vampire world with a unique slant. Youâve heard of people being called âemotional vampiresâ right? There the sort of people who drain your energy by just being in the same room as them, because theyâre for some reason, negative or miserable. Well this book takes that idea and runs with it. Like energy draining vampires who can suck out any goodness in your aura, just because they can. But of course, in this world itâs not that simple. And for good reason, too!
Overall I have the feeling this is the start of a vast universe, with complex rules and therefore has the capacity to branch off in so many directions, this could the first of a long-running series, and would make great viewing on the box. In fact, I watched these characters play out their roles in my head as if it were already on the TV! Thereâs an intense, dark atmosphere to this story where the surreal meets a reality not unlike our own⌠if we are to believe thereâs more to life than what we can see. And why shouldnât there be?
A rich tapestry of characters in a world where there is so much more to be discovered. Iâm looking forward to continuing this adventure!
Well researched historical background (2 more)
Intriguing characters
Jamie Fraser
Like many other reviewers of this book, the genre of this story is not my first go to. This aside, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Outlander.
The novel is set in two different time periods, the first the aftermath of the Second World War, the second during the 1740s and the build up to the battle of Culloden. One of the strengths of this book, is that Diana Gabaldon has researched the historical settings of this novel well, and paints a fantastic image of the times for the reader. With a background in the study of history, I am normally the first to start picking faults in the historiography of a story, however in this case, I was unable to, and instead able to relax into the plot line itself. The novel also encouraged me to carry out further research into Scotland in the 1740s and even visit the Culloden battlefield (and of course the Fraser stone).
The characters in the novel are well thought out and all have their faults as well as strengths (which in my eyes makes them more believable). Clare, the main character is a strong willed and independent woman, however can be outspoken before her time. Jamie is a character that see through Clareâs eyes and as such, we understand why she falls in love with him, is at times held by the constraints about how men and women should act in marriage during the 1740s, and struggles to cope with Clareâs independence.
As readers we are led through a story of 1740s clan culture in Scotland (including the brutal behaviour of the British officer Jack Randall), as well as the emerging love story between Jamie and Clare. This is ultimately a love story, but sexual scenes are much more subtle in text than the dramatisation of the TV series. As is often the case with books that have been dramatised onto the screen, we also get a much deeper insight into the feelings and emotions of a character, which often struggles to translate onto screen.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and eagerly await picking up the sequel to find out what will happen next to Clare, Jamie and Frank.
The novel is set in two different time periods, the first the aftermath of the Second World War, the second during the 1740s and the build up to the battle of Culloden. One of the strengths of this book, is that Diana Gabaldon has researched the historical settings of this novel well, and paints a fantastic image of the times for the reader. With a background in the study of history, I am normally the first to start picking faults in the historiography of a story, however in this case, I was unable to, and instead able to relax into the plot line itself. The novel also encouraged me to carry out further research into Scotland in the 1740s and even visit the Culloden battlefield (and of course the Fraser stone).
The characters in the novel are well thought out and all have their faults as well as strengths (which in my eyes makes them more believable). Clare, the main character is a strong willed and independent woman, however can be outspoken before her time. Jamie is a character that see through Clareâs eyes and as such, we understand why she falls in love with him, is at times held by the constraints about how men and women should act in marriage during the 1740s, and struggles to cope with Clareâs independence.
As readers we are led through a story of 1740s clan culture in Scotland (including the brutal behaviour of the British officer Jack Randall), as well as the emerging love story between Jamie and Clare. This is ultimately a love story, but sexual scenes are much more subtle in text than the dramatisation of the TV series. As is often the case with books that have been dramatised onto the screen, we also get a much deeper insight into the feelings and emotions of a character, which often struggles to translate onto screen.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and eagerly await picking up the sequel to find out what will happen next to Clare, Jamie and Frank.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Lost in Wonderland in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<i>Lost in Wonderland</i> has got to be one of the weirdest books IÂve ever read, and if IÂve read a weirder book than this one, then this is the weirdest book IÂve read this year.
Okay, the bookÂs weirdness is what intrigued me to read the book in the first place. But let me say just how weird this book really is:
The book starts with a character named Mouse. Honestly, I thought the book started with a legit mouse (it really sounded like one as well). A flipping <i>mouse</i>! Who starts a book with a mouse?! Really, I just got so confused for awhile at the very beginning, so to save everyone elseÂs sanity, the main character is not actually a mouse.
ItÂs a reference to some of the characters involved in Lewis CarrollÂs <i>Alice In Wonderland</i>. After that got cleared out, the plot actually made a lot more sense. (LetÂs also keep in mind that I do not remember the synopsis of a book. I read it, I find it interesting, I get the book myself, and then actually read the book. Maybe IÂll remember the synopsis if IÂm lucky.)
But anyways, <i>Lost In Wonderland</i> is extremely weird. As in, top of the notch weird. ItÂs disturbing and gruesome and twisted. But itÂs such a good kind of weird, that I think this entire series would be a really cool TV show. <i>Lost In Wonderland</i> is basically Law & Order, CSI - just think of any crime related shows - with a fairy tale twist. I just canÂt get how awesome this would be on an actual screen, and I just want to see if Peacock incorporates any other fairy tales or just <i>Alice In Wonderland</i>.
<div style="text-align: center;"></div>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-lost-in-wonderland-by-nicky-peacock/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<i>Lost in Wonderland</i> has got to be one of the weirdest books IÂve ever read, and if IÂve read a weirder book than this one, then this is the weirdest book IÂve read this year.
Okay, the bookÂs weirdness is what intrigued me to read the book in the first place. But let me say just how weird this book really is:
The book starts with a character named Mouse. Honestly, I thought the book started with a legit mouse (it really sounded like one as well). A flipping <i>mouse</i>! Who starts a book with a mouse?! Really, I just got so confused for awhile at the very beginning, so to save everyone elseÂs sanity, the main character is not actually a mouse.
ItÂs a reference to some of the characters involved in Lewis CarrollÂs <i>Alice In Wonderland</i>. After that got cleared out, the plot actually made a lot more sense. (LetÂs also keep in mind that I do not remember the synopsis of a book. I read it, I find it interesting, I get the book myself, and then actually read the book. Maybe IÂll remember the synopsis if IÂm lucky.)
But anyways, <i>Lost In Wonderland</i> is extremely weird. As in, top of the notch weird. ItÂs disturbing and gruesome and twisted. But itÂs such a good kind of weird, that I think this entire series would be a really cool TV show. <i>Lost In Wonderland</i> is basically Law & Order, CSI - just think of any crime related shows - with a fairy tale twist. I just canÂt get how awesome this would be on an actual screen, and I just want to see if Peacock incorporates any other fairy tales or just <i>Alice In Wonderland</i>.
<div style="text-align: center;"></div>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-lost-in-wonderland-by-nicky-peacock/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Chad Miller (121 KP) Jul 23, 2019
Eleanor (1463 KP) Jul 24, 2019