Search
Search results
Debbiereadsbook (1449 KP) rated Fearless (Somerton Security #3) in Books
Nov 16, 2018
far darker than the others, but equally brilliant!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book direct from the author, and I thank Ms Dyer for that!
This is book three in the Somerton Security series and I would strongly recommend that you read books one, Defenseless and book two, Relentless before you read this one. There is some of an on-going story arc, and I don't think you'll get the full benefit of THIS book, if you don't. And,I mean, both are five star reads too!
We haven't met Will or Cooper before, but we know of Will. He is Georgia's brother and we thought him long dead. Cooper is a sniper, and they have talked before, Will and Coop, long intimate conversations, but never got round to meeting. When Coop's life is threatened by her actions on orders, she needs Will to find the answers and clear her name. She just needs to free Will from his captivity.
I loved this one, too!
It's far darker than the other two, because some of Will's torture is described, in detail, as it happens and as memories surfacing, but it's needed. You NEED to know what happened to Will, while he was held all that time, because it has some baring on what happens later in the book. Quite graphic, but absolutely necessary.
Will and Coop's history is all phone calls and texts, but I loved that the full picture isn't immediately clear. You're left guessing at the clues and I love being kept on my toes.
I loved that Coop could SEE Will, you know, under all that dirt and grime and all those scars. She could see the man he was, will be again, even if Will couldn't. Loved that Will knew he had to let Coop go, if he was going to keep her and LOVED how he pulled her back!! I was like, way to go man!!
Parker and Georgia, and Ethan and Natalia all pop up, if only towards the end but it was nice that they did.
There is a character here who has piqued my interest, particularly after what he says to Coop and Will when the sh*t hits the fan, and more importantly, it was the WAY he said it. Makes me think that HIS story could be next, and he isn't quite the bad guy he portrays here. Maybe he is, but I think there is a teeny tiny soft spot in his heart for a certain doctor who is missing.
Please keep these coming!!
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book three in the Somerton Security series and I would strongly recommend that you read books one, Defenseless and book two, Relentless before you read this one. There is some of an on-going story arc, and I don't think you'll get the full benefit of THIS book, if you don't. And,I mean, both are five star reads too!
We haven't met Will or Cooper before, but we know of Will. He is Georgia's brother and we thought him long dead. Cooper is a sniper, and they have talked before, Will and Coop, long intimate conversations, but never got round to meeting. When Coop's life is threatened by her actions on orders, she needs Will to find the answers and clear her name. She just needs to free Will from his captivity.
I loved this one, too!
It's far darker than the other two, because some of Will's torture is described, in detail, as it happens and as memories surfacing, but it's needed. You NEED to know what happened to Will, while he was held all that time, because it has some baring on what happens later in the book. Quite graphic, but absolutely necessary.
Will and Coop's history is all phone calls and texts, but I loved that the full picture isn't immediately clear. You're left guessing at the clues and I love being kept on my toes.
I loved that Coop could SEE Will, you know, under all that dirt and grime and all those scars. She could see the man he was, will be again, even if Will couldn't. Loved that Will knew he had to let Coop go, if he was going to keep her and LOVED how he pulled her back!! I was like, way to go man!!
Parker and Georgia, and Ethan and Natalia all pop up, if only towards the end but it was nice that they did.
There is a character here who has piqued my interest, particularly after what he says to Coop and Will when the sh*t hits the fan, and more importantly, it was the WAY he said it. Makes me think that HIS story could be next, and he isn't quite the bad guy he portrays here. Maybe he is, but I think there is a teeny tiny soft spot in his heart for a certain doctor who is missing.
Please keep these coming!!
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Do No Harm in Books
Feb 25, 2021
A dark look into how far a mother would go to save her child
After a tough childhood, where she was orphaned and spent time in foster care, Emma finally has the life she's always wanted. A successful doctor, she has a loving husband, Nate, and a young son, Josh. But that all stands to change when Josh, who is only five, is diagnosed with leukemia. Even with her hospital insurance, Josh's potential life-saving treatment will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Determined to save Josh no matter what, Emma makes the decision to sell opioids. Her choice puts her directly against Nate, a local police officer, who is investigating the death of a potential drug dealer. Emma will do anything to save Josh--does that include murder?
"I felt like I'd been dropped down a rabbit hole with the wolf sitting right outside. And the wolf was my husband."
This is a brutal dark read that pulls you into Emma and Nate's dilemma immediately. Personally, I found it hard to read about Josh's illness. I have a difficult time with books about kids being sick. But, McDonald is an excellent writer, and she does a wonderful job portraying stricken parents, pushed to the brink, who would do anything for their child. For Emma, it's turning to selling drugs. For Nate, it's working constantly to solve his current case, which means a promotion that could brings additional money for their family. The story is told from each of their perspectives, ratcheting up the tension with each chapter.
Emma, it seems, really has no limits on what she would do for Josh. McDonald makes the reader question: how far would you go to save your child? The book also offers a nuanced perspective on the opioid crisis, versus the usual "drugs bad" stance we get in many novels, which I appreciated. The entire novel makes you think and question standard perspectives in so many ways. It turns good versus evil and right versus wrong on its heels. And it offers a dark and insightful look into drug addiction and chronic pain and how families support each other (or don't).
Overall, this isn't an easy read, but it's a well-written and compelling one. It's timely, with an excellent perspective on the drug problems facing Americans and leaves the reader questioning much about right versus wrong. 4 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Gallery Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. It is available on 2/16/2021.
"I felt like I'd been dropped down a rabbit hole with the wolf sitting right outside. And the wolf was my husband."
This is a brutal dark read that pulls you into Emma and Nate's dilemma immediately. Personally, I found it hard to read about Josh's illness. I have a difficult time with books about kids being sick. But, McDonald is an excellent writer, and she does a wonderful job portraying stricken parents, pushed to the brink, who would do anything for their child. For Emma, it's turning to selling drugs. For Nate, it's working constantly to solve his current case, which means a promotion that could brings additional money for their family. The story is told from each of their perspectives, ratcheting up the tension with each chapter.
Emma, it seems, really has no limits on what she would do for Josh. McDonald makes the reader question: how far would you go to save your child? The book also offers a nuanced perspective on the opioid crisis, versus the usual "drugs bad" stance we get in many novels, which I appreciated. The entire novel makes you think and question standard perspectives in so many ways. It turns good versus evil and right versus wrong on its heels. And it offers a dark and insightful look into drug addiction and chronic pain and how families support each other (or don't).
Overall, this isn't an easy read, but it's a well-written and compelling one. It's timely, with an excellent perspective on the drug problems facing Americans and leaves the reader questioning much about right versus wrong. 4 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Gallery Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. It is available on 2/16/2021.
Ronyell (38 KP) rated Return to Oz (1985) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
The Dark Side of Oz!
Dorothy Gale had just come back from the Land of Oz, but when she tried to tell her aunt and uncle about her adventures in Oz, they thought that Dorothy had gone crazy, so they decided to take her to a doctor that will give her treatment for her insanity. The treatment turns out to be shock therapy and Dorothy, with a little help from a mysterious girl, escapes from the mental hospital and ended up in the land of Oz once again. But, once Dorothy arrives in Oz, she discovers that the Land of Oz has been taken over by the Nome King and that the Scarecrow, who was the King of Oz, has been kidnapped by the Nome King. So, Dorothy along with some help from a pumpkin man named Jack Pumpkinhead, a mechanical robot named Tik-Tok, her hen Billina and a half moose half sofa creature named the Gump try to journey to the Nome King's kingdom to rescue the Scarecrow, while encountering nightmarish creatures such as Princess Mombi and the Wheelers along the way.
Now I have a confession to make. Whenever I talked to people who have seen "Return to Oz" when they were little, many people were terrified of this movie when they were kids. Me however, I wasn't that scared of the movie when I was little and I actually found it to be pretty interesting and I still find it pretty interesting to this very day! This movie has actually turned my expectations on its head as it is a much darker sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" that has caused some controversy among "Oz" fans and yet, it was pulled off extremely well to make it stand out from "The Wizard of Oz." The surprising thing about all this is that this was the most faithful adaptation of L. Frank Baum's "Oz" books in terms of tone, even though "The Wizard of Oz" is hailed as one of the greatest movies of all time. What I really loved about this movie was the fact that it was darker and edgier than "The Wizard of Oz" and the villains in this movie seem genuinely threatening and are actually out to harm Dorothy and her friends. Probably my favorite scenes in this movie were any scenes with the Nome King as he seems to be friendly towards Dorothy and her friends, but you can tell that he has some evil intentions up his sleeves and he actually means to trick Dorothy into a sense of security in order to manipulate her throughout her adventures. I loved the new friends that Dorothy makes along the way, especially Tik-Tok and Jack Pumpkinhead as they were truly original and fun to see on screen.
Parents should know that this movie can be pretty terrifying for small children. There are many scenes where Dorothy and her friends are in constant peril and are in danger of being killed by the villains. Also, there are some genuinely scary scenes such as the scene where Dorothy accidentally wakes up a headless Princess Mombi, who tries to capture Dorothy and the scenes with the Wheelers. Parents might want to screen this movie first before showing it to their children. Also, the reason why I took off half a point from the rating was because the movie can get pretty confusing at times and it was hard for me to follow what exactly happened in the plot at times.
Overall, "Return to Oz" is a truly enjoyable film that "Oz" fans would enjoy extremely well! However, this movie can get pretty scary at times, so watch this film with extreme caution.
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/movie-review-return-to-oz-1985.html
Now I have a confession to make. Whenever I talked to people who have seen "Return to Oz" when they were little, many people were terrified of this movie when they were kids. Me however, I wasn't that scared of the movie when I was little and I actually found it to be pretty interesting and I still find it pretty interesting to this very day! This movie has actually turned my expectations on its head as it is a much darker sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" that has caused some controversy among "Oz" fans and yet, it was pulled off extremely well to make it stand out from "The Wizard of Oz." The surprising thing about all this is that this was the most faithful adaptation of L. Frank Baum's "Oz" books in terms of tone, even though "The Wizard of Oz" is hailed as one of the greatest movies of all time. What I really loved about this movie was the fact that it was darker and edgier than "The Wizard of Oz" and the villains in this movie seem genuinely threatening and are actually out to harm Dorothy and her friends. Probably my favorite scenes in this movie were any scenes with the Nome King as he seems to be friendly towards Dorothy and her friends, but you can tell that he has some evil intentions up his sleeves and he actually means to trick Dorothy into a sense of security in order to manipulate her throughout her adventures. I loved the new friends that Dorothy makes along the way, especially Tik-Tok and Jack Pumpkinhead as they were truly original and fun to see on screen.
Parents should know that this movie can be pretty terrifying for small children. There are many scenes where Dorothy and her friends are in constant peril and are in danger of being killed by the villains. Also, there are some genuinely scary scenes such as the scene where Dorothy accidentally wakes up a headless Princess Mombi, who tries to capture Dorothy and the scenes with the Wheelers. Parents might want to screen this movie first before showing it to their children. Also, the reason why I took off half a point from the rating was because the movie can get pretty confusing at times and it was hard for me to follow what exactly happened in the plot at times.
Overall, "Return to Oz" is a truly enjoyable film that "Oz" fans would enjoy extremely well! However, this movie can get pretty scary at times, so watch this film with extreme caution.
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/movie-review-return-to-oz-1985.html
Sarah (7800 KP) rated It’s A Sin in TV
Feb 7, 2021
Outstanding drama
It’s A Sin is the latest drama from the mind of Russell T Davies, the man behind Queer as Folk, Cucumber and the revival of Doctor Who back in 2005. It follows a group of gay men and their friends in London from 1981 to 1991, depicting how the developing HIV and AIDS crisis impacted on their lives.
The series concentrates on 5 friends who meet in 1981 and move into a flat together. There’s outgoing and smart Ritchie (Olly Alexander), shy and mild mannered Colin (Callum Scott Howells), flamboyant Nigerian Roscoe (Omari Douglas), sweet Ash (Nathaniel Curtis) and outgoing, responsible Jill (Lydia West). It’s A Sin follows the friends as they party and lead promiscuous lifestyles over the 80s, only for the AIDS crisis to slowly weave its way into their lives and affect friends and colleagues closest to them. Each deals with the developing crisis in their own way: Jill fights for AIDS awareness and help for those that are suffering, whereas Ritchie remains in denial and spreads conspiracy theories about AIDS. But by 1991, the lives of the group and their families have been irrevocably changed.
It’s A Sin is a powerful drama about an emotive and serious subject. While it is not based on a completely true story (only Jill is loosely based on a real person, Jill Nalder, a friend of Davies), Russell T Davies has based this around his and his friends experiences of the AIDS crisis in the 80s and watching this you can really believe that these sorts of events happened across the 80s and 90s. The attitudes and experiences shown here, from the hedonistic lifestyles to the rampant denial and conspiracy theories, are terrifying and sadly a true to life depiction of the attitudes at the time, and make for a rather emotional and sometimes harrowing watch.
Despite the serious subject, It’s A Sin isn’t entirely sombre. It starts out as a story of friendship and fun and there are a lot of heartwarming scenes and a surprising amount of laughs. Some might think the uplifting side of this drama detracts from the seriousness of the AIDS crisis, but personally I found the lighthearted scenes helped balance the rather sobering seriousness, especially as the episodes gradually become more and more grave as the crisis progresses. Even the gay sex scenes are fun and made mostly for laughs rather than any sort of eroticism. It’s impressive that Davies has managed to pull off a series that seamlessly blends lighthearted entertainment with a serious topic, without making light of such a harrowing crisis.
It helps that the cast are fantastic. Olly Alexander, who I knew nothing about other than recognising a few Years and Years songs, is an absolute star and a standout as Ritchie. He’s charismatic and engaging and when he’s on screen, you can’t take your eyes off him. The rest of the main cast too are just as good, especially this being their first major tv role in the case of Howells and Douglas. They’re ably supported by a host of seasoned veterans, including Neil Patrick Harris as Colin’s work colleague, Stephen Fry as a closeted MP that Roscoe meets, and Keeley Hawes and Shaun Dooley as Ritchie’s parents. Hawes and Dooley are especially moving and ultimately surprising in the later episodes, when their true attitudes as parents are revealed. My only real criticism of this series is so minor it’s barely worth mentioning, but I did get a little frustrated that Ritchie’s full name was Ritchie Tozer, as this is the same name as Richie Tozier from Stephen King’s IT. Admittedly a different spelling, but it did grate on me a little throughout the episodes as it’s not exactly a common name.
However despite my reservations on character naming, It’s A Sin is a fantastic heartwarming yet sobering drama that can’t be faulted. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anything so engaging and emotional.
The series concentrates on 5 friends who meet in 1981 and move into a flat together. There’s outgoing and smart Ritchie (Olly Alexander), shy and mild mannered Colin (Callum Scott Howells), flamboyant Nigerian Roscoe (Omari Douglas), sweet Ash (Nathaniel Curtis) and outgoing, responsible Jill (Lydia West). It’s A Sin follows the friends as they party and lead promiscuous lifestyles over the 80s, only for the AIDS crisis to slowly weave its way into their lives and affect friends and colleagues closest to them. Each deals with the developing crisis in their own way: Jill fights for AIDS awareness and help for those that are suffering, whereas Ritchie remains in denial and spreads conspiracy theories about AIDS. But by 1991, the lives of the group and their families have been irrevocably changed.
It’s A Sin is a powerful drama about an emotive and serious subject. While it is not based on a completely true story (only Jill is loosely based on a real person, Jill Nalder, a friend of Davies), Russell T Davies has based this around his and his friends experiences of the AIDS crisis in the 80s and watching this you can really believe that these sorts of events happened across the 80s and 90s. The attitudes and experiences shown here, from the hedonistic lifestyles to the rampant denial and conspiracy theories, are terrifying and sadly a true to life depiction of the attitudes at the time, and make for a rather emotional and sometimes harrowing watch.
Despite the serious subject, It’s A Sin isn’t entirely sombre. It starts out as a story of friendship and fun and there are a lot of heartwarming scenes and a surprising amount of laughs. Some might think the uplifting side of this drama detracts from the seriousness of the AIDS crisis, but personally I found the lighthearted scenes helped balance the rather sobering seriousness, especially as the episodes gradually become more and more grave as the crisis progresses. Even the gay sex scenes are fun and made mostly for laughs rather than any sort of eroticism. It’s impressive that Davies has managed to pull off a series that seamlessly blends lighthearted entertainment with a serious topic, without making light of such a harrowing crisis.
It helps that the cast are fantastic. Olly Alexander, who I knew nothing about other than recognising a few Years and Years songs, is an absolute star and a standout as Ritchie. He’s charismatic and engaging and when he’s on screen, you can’t take your eyes off him. The rest of the main cast too are just as good, especially this being their first major tv role in the case of Howells and Douglas. They’re ably supported by a host of seasoned veterans, including Neil Patrick Harris as Colin’s work colleague, Stephen Fry as a closeted MP that Roscoe meets, and Keeley Hawes and Shaun Dooley as Ritchie’s parents. Hawes and Dooley are especially moving and ultimately surprising in the later episodes, when their true attitudes as parents are revealed. My only real criticism of this series is so minor it’s barely worth mentioning, but I did get a little frustrated that Ritchie’s full name was Ritchie Tozer, as this is the same name as Richie Tozier from Stephen King’s IT. Admittedly a different spelling, but it did grate on me a little throughout the episodes as it’s not exactly a common name.
However despite my reservations on character naming, It’s A Sin is a fantastic heartwarming yet sobering drama that can’t be faulted. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anything so engaging and emotional.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) in Movies
Sep 16, 2021
Relationship between Shaun and Katy (1 more)
Great Shakespearean level of story
Ten rings to rule them all
Positives:
- This is Marvel at its best. A script (with Shakespearean undertones) that melds action with good character development and laugh-out-loud feel-good dialogue. The great thing is that you don't need to be a Marvel nerd to enjoy this one. Yes, there are some fabulous Easter Eggs for Marvel fans (and a wonderful return of a character from one of the early films). But it's almost a standalone feature in its own right.
- The action sequences are top-notch, particularly an early fight on a careering San Francisco "bendy-bus". Some great martial-arts reminiscent of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", made more exciting by the fact that the impressive Simu Liu did all his own stunts.
- The relationship built between Shaun and Katy is wonderful, and the actors deliver on it brilliantly: no wonder when you have the exceptional Awkwafina on the other end of it. Similarly, the relationship built between Shang-Chi and his father is powerful, thanks to some wonderful acting from Tony Chiu-Wai Leung. So good in the gripping (and erotic) 'Lust, Caution', I believe this is his first English-speaking film.
- With the odd exception (see below), the special effects are top-notch.
Negatives:
- I thought this was 5* all the way until the final reel, when we descended into a CGI-driven "Godzilla vs Kong" finale. I hate CGI that's just a blur of action across the screen where you're struggling to understand what's going on. Less would be more here for me.
- The movie makes extensive use of 'flashbacks' and, for me, there was a bit too much heavy-handedness in their use. I muttered "enough already" to a few of them, since they were taking us out of the movie's current narrative.
- There were a couple of effects that looked like the intern at the special effects company had put them together during a coffee break. An early plunge of a jeep into a forest and some rather obvious green-screen stuff in the finale. Surprised that these weren't caught and redone.
Timeline?: So, it took more of a Marvel nerd than I am (my wonderful daughter-in-law Bronwyn) to point out that although this film is set (largely) in the "Present Day", the events of "Avengers: Endgame" actually happen in 2023. So in the Marvel timeline, this is set in between Thanos's "blip" and "the return". This is the reason why Wong is present but not Doctor Strange, for example.
Summary Thoughts: Marvel goes East! This is a really entertaining addition to the franchise, mixing Marvel action with Eastern mysticism and martial arts. It's an impressive job by director and co-writer Destin Daniel Cretton, in only his second feature (he did "Just Mercy" in 2019).
As a Marvel film, there are of course end-credit scenes ("monkeys" in onemannsmovies speak). A mid-title one is the best, bringing some additional Marvel characters into the mix. And there's a post-credits one which sets up for further sequels but which I found rather irritating.
It's ironic that a Marvel movie so right for the Chinese market - the first to be headlined by an Asian actor and with substantial Mandarin dialogue - might not get a release in China. According to this report, this appears to be for two reasons: firstly that the actor Simu Liu made some derogatory remarks about China in the past, and secondly that in the comics Shang Chi's father is Fu Manchu - a Western-derived character with racial overtones.
This doesn't seem to have hurt it so far. After less than two weeks of opening, it has made $262 million on a budget estimated to be $150-200 million.
(For the full graphical review and video check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
- This is Marvel at its best. A script (with Shakespearean undertones) that melds action with good character development and laugh-out-loud feel-good dialogue. The great thing is that you don't need to be a Marvel nerd to enjoy this one. Yes, there are some fabulous Easter Eggs for Marvel fans (and a wonderful return of a character from one of the early films). But it's almost a standalone feature in its own right.
- The action sequences are top-notch, particularly an early fight on a careering San Francisco "bendy-bus". Some great martial-arts reminiscent of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", made more exciting by the fact that the impressive Simu Liu did all his own stunts.
- The relationship built between Shaun and Katy is wonderful, and the actors deliver on it brilliantly: no wonder when you have the exceptional Awkwafina on the other end of it. Similarly, the relationship built between Shang-Chi and his father is powerful, thanks to some wonderful acting from Tony Chiu-Wai Leung. So good in the gripping (and erotic) 'Lust, Caution', I believe this is his first English-speaking film.
- With the odd exception (see below), the special effects are top-notch.
Negatives:
- I thought this was 5* all the way until the final reel, when we descended into a CGI-driven "Godzilla vs Kong" finale. I hate CGI that's just a blur of action across the screen where you're struggling to understand what's going on. Less would be more here for me.
- The movie makes extensive use of 'flashbacks' and, for me, there was a bit too much heavy-handedness in their use. I muttered "enough already" to a few of them, since they were taking us out of the movie's current narrative.
- There were a couple of effects that looked like the intern at the special effects company had put them together during a coffee break. An early plunge of a jeep into a forest and some rather obvious green-screen stuff in the finale. Surprised that these weren't caught and redone.
Timeline?: So, it took more of a Marvel nerd than I am (my wonderful daughter-in-law Bronwyn) to point out that although this film is set (largely) in the "Present Day", the events of "Avengers: Endgame" actually happen in 2023. So in the Marvel timeline, this is set in between Thanos's "blip" and "the return". This is the reason why Wong is present but not Doctor Strange, for example.
Summary Thoughts: Marvel goes East! This is a really entertaining addition to the franchise, mixing Marvel action with Eastern mysticism and martial arts. It's an impressive job by director and co-writer Destin Daniel Cretton, in only his second feature (he did "Just Mercy" in 2019).
As a Marvel film, there are of course end-credit scenes ("monkeys" in onemannsmovies speak). A mid-title one is the best, bringing some additional Marvel characters into the mix. And there's a post-credits one which sets up for further sequels but which I found rather irritating.
It's ironic that a Marvel movie so right for the Chinese market - the first to be headlined by an Asian actor and with substantial Mandarin dialogue - might not get a release in China. According to this report, this appears to be for two reasons: firstly that the actor Simu Liu made some derogatory remarks about China in the past, and secondly that in the comics Shang Chi's father is Fu Manchu - a Western-derived character with racial overtones.
This doesn't seem to have hurt it so far. After less than two weeks of opening, it has made $262 million on a budget estimated to be $150-200 million.
(For the full graphical review and video check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law return once again as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows“. In this installment, a series of bombings across Europe has positioned the nations of the world on the brink of war. Holmes is convinced that there is a criminal mastermind behind the numerous, seemingly unrelated events and he believes it is renowned scholar James Moriarty (Jared Harris).
Watson, well-accustomed to Holmes’ eccentric and erratic behavior, is dubious of Holmes claims. Besides, Watson has his upcoming wedding to focus on, and only deigns to spend time with Holmes at the promise of a stag party at an upscale gentlemen’s club. While the bachelor party includes an entertaining Stephen Fry playing Holmes’ brother, Mycroft, Holmes has ulterior motives for taking Watson to this particular club. Early in the film, Holmes had cleverly intercepted a message from Irene Adler (Amy McAdams), that led him to a fortuneteller named Madam Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace), a woman Holmes believes has been targeted for death by Moriarty, who just happens to be working at the gentlemen’s club.
Eventually a meeting with Moriarty is arranged for Holmes. The two intellectuals spar with one another verbally in a civilized manner, with menacing undertones. Holmes isn’t able to convince Moriarty that Watson is no longer a partner in any of his endeavors and, Holmes is forced to take drastic measures to ensure the doctor and his new wife stay out of harm’s way. From Paris to Germany and other European locales, Holmes, Watson, and Simza and her gypsy friends race against time to uncover the diabolical plot that Moriarty has set for their demise in his quest to drive nations to war.
The film is an absolute delight and is a rare sequel that is even better than the previous film in the series. Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law have amazing chemistry with one another and their timing is absolutely perfect. The duo deftly mix action and comedy as well as the serious subject matter of the plot line and are utterly captivating and enjoyable to watch every step of the way. Rapace continues to impress in a much softer character than her Lisbeth Salandar role in the “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Swedish trilogy. and is poised to become one of Hollywood’s new leading ladies.
Having become familiar with Harris’ work on the series Mad Men, I was delighted to see him expertly portray such a complex character as Moriarty: a gentleman scholar of impeccable upbringing and education who is also a twisted and evil genius. Harris plays Moriarty perfectly and never lets you forget the dark and sinister side of him without ever becoming a campy or cartoony vaudeville villain.
Guy Ritchie returns as director and lets his stars carry the film. The action has been ramped up this time around with some spectacular action sequences but the action never overshadows the character-driven story. The film was well-paced and an absolute thrill ride from beginning to end mixing fantastic action and some great humor for a very winning combination that is not to be missed. I am already looking forward to future outings of Holmes and Watson on the big screen as this was a truly enjoyable experience that shows you how action comedies are supposed to be made.
Watson, well-accustomed to Holmes’ eccentric and erratic behavior, is dubious of Holmes claims. Besides, Watson has his upcoming wedding to focus on, and only deigns to spend time with Holmes at the promise of a stag party at an upscale gentlemen’s club. While the bachelor party includes an entertaining Stephen Fry playing Holmes’ brother, Mycroft, Holmes has ulterior motives for taking Watson to this particular club. Early in the film, Holmes had cleverly intercepted a message from Irene Adler (Amy McAdams), that led him to a fortuneteller named Madam Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace), a woman Holmes believes has been targeted for death by Moriarty, who just happens to be working at the gentlemen’s club.
Eventually a meeting with Moriarty is arranged for Holmes. The two intellectuals spar with one another verbally in a civilized manner, with menacing undertones. Holmes isn’t able to convince Moriarty that Watson is no longer a partner in any of his endeavors and, Holmes is forced to take drastic measures to ensure the doctor and his new wife stay out of harm’s way. From Paris to Germany and other European locales, Holmes, Watson, and Simza and her gypsy friends race against time to uncover the diabolical plot that Moriarty has set for their demise in his quest to drive nations to war.
The film is an absolute delight and is a rare sequel that is even better than the previous film in the series. Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law have amazing chemistry with one another and their timing is absolutely perfect. The duo deftly mix action and comedy as well as the serious subject matter of the plot line and are utterly captivating and enjoyable to watch every step of the way. Rapace continues to impress in a much softer character than her Lisbeth Salandar role in the “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Swedish trilogy. and is poised to become one of Hollywood’s new leading ladies.
Having become familiar with Harris’ work on the series Mad Men, I was delighted to see him expertly portray such a complex character as Moriarty: a gentleman scholar of impeccable upbringing and education who is also a twisted and evil genius. Harris plays Moriarty perfectly and never lets you forget the dark and sinister side of him without ever becoming a campy or cartoony vaudeville villain.
Guy Ritchie returns as director and lets his stars carry the film. The action has been ramped up this time around with some spectacular action sequences but the action never overshadows the character-driven story. The film was well-paced and an absolute thrill ride from beginning to end mixing fantastic action and some great humor for a very winning combination that is not to be missed. I am already looking forward to future outings of Holmes and Watson on the big screen as this was a truly enjoyable experience that shows you how action comedies are supposed to be made.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Mar 5, 2018
Epic
There is so much to love about Black Panther that it's taken me awhile to figure out where to begin. I guess I'll start with the message. A message that leaves us with two options: We can all spend the rest of our lives hating each other or we can choose to work together. That's not just a message for black people, which the cast predominately represents, but a message for the human race.
The film would be nothing without the powerful cast surrounding it. Their performances were both memorable and deep. I could spend this entire review going into depth on the effect of each actor/actresses performance on the film, but instead I want to take a moment to recognize one particular actress who has been in the game for decades: Angela Bassett. She absolutely nails the role of Queen mother Ramonda. Because the other roles are so strong, her performance may go unnoticed but not by me. She's a picture of calm, always displaying the perfect amount of strength in her position of power. Her vulnerability doesn't diminish her role of power in this matriarchal society.
Critics and fans alike have been complaining about one-dimensional villains for years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. You won't find that in Black Panther as Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is extremely well-developed. The best villains make you sensitive to their plight. Not only did I understand where Killmonger was coming from, there were plenty of moments where I wondered whether or not he was wrong.
As much as the film creates a strong feeling of black empowerment, Black Panther creates a strong sense of women's empowerment as well. The Wakandan tribes revolve around a king, yet the society would be nothing without the strong matriarchal figures that keep things running smoothly. There is a scene in the beginning of the film where N'Jobu (Sterling K. Brown) is discussing underdealings in his apartment when there is a knock at his door. When asked if he should open the door, he responds, "They won't ask twice." You can read the fear in his eyes as he understands the power of the women waiting behind that door. The more of the film you watch, the more you understand the justification behind that fear.
The conflict in the film wasn't created, but happened naturally as a result of flawed characters with depth and strong minds. W'Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) loves his people but has a heart for vengeance which begins to consume him. His story is just one of many revolving pieces that provide layers to the story.
The set pieces throughout the film were absolutely stunning. From its beautiful waterfall overlooks to the wintery mountains of the Jabari Tribe, you can't help but feel the magic in this place. The casino set piece was easily my favorite, a location that's seedy on the outside yet full of glamour and ritz within.
Now for my one minor gripe: I can't go into detail without ruining the film for those that haven't seen it, but there was one particular relationship that I felt should have been fleshed out a bit more, especially since it impacted the tide of the movie as a whole. The original cut of this film is four hours long and I've read that my issue is a non-issue in that version so I won't deduct too much. Not to mention, there are so many moments that they got right, particularly in the action front, that it's hard being too picky. Even the fight scenes and sprawling battles (rhinos in vibranium armor? Yes, please!) are original, breathing fresh life into the MCU the same way Doctor Strange did.
At the heart of everything, Black Panther is shaped by memorable, powerful moments that impact the way you look at the movie. Killmonger's dream sequence is probably the most powerful scene in an MCU movie yet, just edging out the final confrontation between Vision and Ultron in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The film is a double threat as it not only packs a strong action punch, but an introspective one as well.
Wakanda is crowning a new king, but there is one who would oppose the throne for reasons of his own. One, coincidentally, is the same amount of points that I deducted from my rating. Just amazing, Black Panther gets a 99 from me.
The film would be nothing without the powerful cast surrounding it. Their performances were both memorable and deep. I could spend this entire review going into depth on the effect of each actor/actresses performance on the film, but instead I want to take a moment to recognize one particular actress who has been in the game for decades: Angela Bassett. She absolutely nails the role of Queen mother Ramonda. Because the other roles are so strong, her performance may go unnoticed but not by me. She's a picture of calm, always displaying the perfect amount of strength in her position of power. Her vulnerability doesn't diminish her role of power in this matriarchal society.
Critics and fans alike have been complaining about one-dimensional villains for years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. You won't find that in Black Panther as Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is extremely well-developed. The best villains make you sensitive to their plight. Not only did I understand where Killmonger was coming from, there were plenty of moments where I wondered whether or not he was wrong.
As much as the film creates a strong feeling of black empowerment, Black Panther creates a strong sense of women's empowerment as well. The Wakandan tribes revolve around a king, yet the society would be nothing without the strong matriarchal figures that keep things running smoothly. There is a scene in the beginning of the film where N'Jobu (Sterling K. Brown) is discussing underdealings in his apartment when there is a knock at his door. When asked if he should open the door, he responds, "They won't ask twice." You can read the fear in his eyes as he understands the power of the women waiting behind that door. The more of the film you watch, the more you understand the justification behind that fear.
The conflict in the film wasn't created, but happened naturally as a result of flawed characters with depth and strong minds. W'Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) loves his people but has a heart for vengeance which begins to consume him. His story is just one of many revolving pieces that provide layers to the story.
The set pieces throughout the film were absolutely stunning. From its beautiful waterfall overlooks to the wintery mountains of the Jabari Tribe, you can't help but feel the magic in this place. The casino set piece was easily my favorite, a location that's seedy on the outside yet full of glamour and ritz within.
Now for my one minor gripe: I can't go into detail without ruining the film for those that haven't seen it, but there was one particular relationship that I felt should have been fleshed out a bit more, especially since it impacted the tide of the movie as a whole. The original cut of this film is four hours long and I've read that my issue is a non-issue in that version so I won't deduct too much. Not to mention, there are so many moments that they got right, particularly in the action front, that it's hard being too picky. Even the fight scenes and sprawling battles (rhinos in vibranium armor? Yes, please!) are original, breathing fresh life into the MCU the same way Doctor Strange did.
At the heart of everything, Black Panther is shaped by memorable, powerful moments that impact the way you look at the movie. Killmonger's dream sequence is probably the most powerful scene in an MCU movie yet, just edging out the final confrontation between Vision and Ultron in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The film is a double threat as it not only packs a strong action punch, but an introspective one as well.
Wakanda is crowning a new king, but there is one who would oppose the throne for reasons of his own. One, coincidentally, is the same amount of points that I deducted from my rating. Just amazing, Black Panther gets a 99 from me.
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) rated The Stand in TV
Feb 10, 2021
I've never written a full review before as I let my score tell the story for the film/TV show in my view and don't like to influence people by what I write, simply put watch it and make your own judgement but with this steaming pile of crap I've had to do this just to get the anger and loathing off my chest.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Vendetta in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Vendetta by Iris Johansen brings back characters introduced in the Eve Duncan books. Although it is billed as an “Eve Duncan” she is only mentioned briefly. But, this does not take anything away from the plot and the main characters, Rachel Venable and Jude Brandon. The story centers on these two and their attempts to bring down Max Huber, the head of Red Star, a terrorist organization with immense power.
The story begins with the shooting of a top CIA official, Carl Venable. His dying breath to the operative, Jude Brandon, to save his daughter, Dr. Rachel Venable, and give her the choice of eliminating Huber to prevent him from wreaking further havoc on a global scale. Huber wants revenge on Rachel, believing that she killed his father by poisoning him. Enlisting the help of her good friend, CIA operative Catherine Ling and her on again, off again boyfriend, Richard Cameron, they work together to bring Huber down.
Johansen noted, “Every other chapter has a choice come into play. It is all about making choices. Rachel had to decide if she would go after the bad guys. Brandon whether he would involve himself emotionally with Rachel. Catherine made the choice not to hide from her desire for Cameron, as well as knowing she had to give Rachel space and control over her own destiny. The bad guy Huber is pure evil without redeeming qualities and his choice was to inflict as much collateral damage as possible. Even though I have a choice as a writer, I just wanted to kill Huber for doing terrible things to the people I love in my books.”
Both Rachel and Catherine had similar experiences of having to overcome rape. At the age of fifteen Rachel was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, watched them kill her mother and brother, and was brutally raped as well as tortured. What Johansen does wonderfully is to show how Rachel is determined to overcome her past experiences. One of the reasons she becomes a medical doctor is to heal people. Both Catherine and Rachel are intelligent, tough, strong, independent, and stubborn.
The book quote has Rachel determined to not be seen as a cripple. “I wrote that because I consider it the bravest thing she ever said. She went through a terrible event, but she fought and conquered it. Catherine also had a tough life, growing up on the Hong Kong waterfronts. She learned from it to become stronger. These two women are more similar than different. They had rough teenage years that they had to overcome. I think they are more sisters than friends and will always go to bat for each other. I think Catherine is more like the older sister because she has a son, which makes a big difference.”
Johansen writes female characters that are something other than constant damsels in distress. They find a way to survive and have come out even stronger. This story shows how a character’s past and the decisions made influence the present and future, sometimes to the point of getting revenge by pursuing a vendetta.
The story begins with the shooting of a top CIA official, Carl Venable. His dying breath to the operative, Jude Brandon, to save his daughter, Dr. Rachel Venable, and give her the choice of eliminating Huber to prevent him from wreaking further havoc on a global scale. Huber wants revenge on Rachel, believing that she killed his father by poisoning him. Enlisting the help of her good friend, CIA operative Catherine Ling and her on again, off again boyfriend, Richard Cameron, they work together to bring Huber down.
Johansen noted, “Every other chapter has a choice come into play. It is all about making choices. Rachel had to decide if she would go after the bad guys. Brandon whether he would involve himself emotionally with Rachel. Catherine made the choice not to hide from her desire for Cameron, as well as knowing she had to give Rachel space and control over her own destiny. The bad guy Huber is pure evil without redeeming qualities and his choice was to inflict as much collateral damage as possible. Even though I have a choice as a writer, I just wanted to kill Huber for doing terrible things to the people I love in my books.”
Both Rachel and Catherine had similar experiences of having to overcome rape. At the age of fifteen Rachel was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, watched them kill her mother and brother, and was brutally raped as well as tortured. What Johansen does wonderfully is to show how Rachel is determined to overcome her past experiences. One of the reasons she becomes a medical doctor is to heal people. Both Catherine and Rachel are intelligent, tough, strong, independent, and stubborn.
The book quote has Rachel determined to not be seen as a cripple. “I wrote that because I consider it the bravest thing she ever said. She went through a terrible event, but she fought and conquered it. Catherine also had a tough life, growing up on the Hong Kong waterfronts. She learned from it to become stronger. These two women are more similar than different. They had rough teenage years that they had to overcome. I think they are more sisters than friends and will always go to bat for each other. I think Catherine is more like the older sister because she has a son, which makes a big difference.”
Johansen writes female characters that are something other than constant damsels in distress. They find a way to survive and have come out even stronger. This story shows how a character’s past and the decisions made influence the present and future, sometimes to the point of getting revenge by pursuing a vendetta.