Search
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Once Dead, Twice Shy (Madison Avery, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Madison Avery doesn't believe in fate—until a combination of fate and free will brings her to live with her dad (which her mom thinks is a good thing for her since she can't stay out of trouble at home), gets her a pity-date ("you got your boss to get his son to ask me out? what?"), and kills her (at her junior prom. On her seventeenth birthday. of all the luck.). Now, after having claimed the amulet of the timekeeper who killed her (which is the only thing that keeps her looking like she's alive), she has to learn how to live with death. If that's even possible.
But the dark timekeeper who killed her isn't happy, because she's got his amulet, and she's not all the way dead (just sort of dead). Teaming up with Barnabas—who may or may not be a fallen angel—and the light time keeper, Chronos (or Ron for short), a guardian angel (who she forces to guard someone else) and enlisting the human help of her ex-prom date Josh (who she didn't realize she had a crush on), she has to attempt to save her soul.
All in a day's work for a dead high-schooler… right?
This was the second time I've read Once Dead, Twice Shy. I still can't figure out what the title means. Whatever it means, it was a pretty exciting book. There wasn't a second of "down-time." Madison was always up to something, learning something, running to—or from—something, or saving someone. Every chapter had little pieces of the puzzle, and the way it all fit together at the end, was priceless, hilarious, and promising.
I will say that I don't like where the story picks up. I think Harrison should have actually included the beginning of the story, where she gets killed. I read it before I read this book and I would have been rather lost without it. It was a short story included in Prom Nights from Hell. I don't care if this is technically a "book 1" in the series. It should have been book 2, or at least had the beginning of the story included in it.
I really liked Madison. I liked her character (though not some of her choices—but hey, if I was a dead seventeen year old trying to keep her dad from knowing that she could bend time, I probably would have made those same choices) and I liked her interior monologue. She was serious enough to be nerve-wracking and exciting, but sarcastic enough to give everything a touch of comic relief. I really didn't like Josh in the short prequel to this book, but as his character began to be more clear, I really started to like him. I hope things turn out well between him and Madison. I would have liked a little more romantic tension between them, but what was there was clean and innocent—a little too innocent for Madison Avery.
I don't particularly like Kim Harrison's writing style. It's very casual, it has those dreaded fragments, and it's nothing out of the ordinary. However, her way of describing both physical images and emotional feelings was very good, and I could see everything, hear everything, and feel everything her characters were experiencing. As I mentioned above, I liked the comic relief. I also liked her lack of language through the story. Madison had her own set of "words" and phrases that she used that weren't offensive in any way, and it made the story much more enjoyable. However, the only word I can think of to describe her writing is mediocre, and that and the lack of tension between Madison and Josh are the only reasons I don't give this book five stars.
Content: clean of language, violence, and sexuality of any kind. Thank you Harrison, for writing clean YA fiction!
Recommendation: Ages 12+ to lovers of sci-fi, fantasy, and general YA fiction.
This review is copyright Haley Mathiot and Night Owl Reviews.
But the dark timekeeper who killed her isn't happy, because she's got his amulet, and she's not all the way dead (just sort of dead). Teaming up with Barnabas—who may or may not be a fallen angel—and the light time keeper, Chronos (or Ron for short), a guardian angel (who she forces to guard someone else) and enlisting the human help of her ex-prom date Josh (who she didn't realize she had a crush on), she has to attempt to save her soul.
All in a day's work for a dead high-schooler… right?
This was the second time I've read Once Dead, Twice Shy. I still can't figure out what the title means. Whatever it means, it was a pretty exciting book. There wasn't a second of "down-time." Madison was always up to something, learning something, running to—or from—something, or saving someone. Every chapter had little pieces of the puzzle, and the way it all fit together at the end, was priceless, hilarious, and promising.
I will say that I don't like where the story picks up. I think Harrison should have actually included the beginning of the story, where she gets killed. I read it before I read this book and I would have been rather lost without it. It was a short story included in Prom Nights from Hell. I don't care if this is technically a "book 1" in the series. It should have been book 2, or at least had the beginning of the story included in it.
I really liked Madison. I liked her character (though not some of her choices—but hey, if I was a dead seventeen year old trying to keep her dad from knowing that she could bend time, I probably would have made those same choices) and I liked her interior monologue. She was serious enough to be nerve-wracking and exciting, but sarcastic enough to give everything a touch of comic relief. I really didn't like Josh in the short prequel to this book, but as his character began to be more clear, I really started to like him. I hope things turn out well between him and Madison. I would have liked a little more romantic tension between them, but what was there was clean and innocent—a little too innocent for Madison Avery.
I don't particularly like Kim Harrison's writing style. It's very casual, it has those dreaded fragments, and it's nothing out of the ordinary. However, her way of describing both physical images and emotional feelings was very good, and I could see everything, hear everything, and feel everything her characters were experiencing. As I mentioned above, I liked the comic relief. I also liked her lack of language through the story. Madison had her own set of "words" and phrases that she used that weren't offensive in any way, and it made the story much more enjoyable. However, the only word I can think of to describe her writing is mediocre, and that and the lack of tension between Madison and Josh are the only reasons I don't give this book five stars.
Content: clean of language, violence, and sexuality of any kind. Thank you Harrison, for writing clean YA fiction!
Recommendation: Ages 12+ to lovers of sci-fi, fantasy, and general YA fiction.
This review is copyright Haley Mathiot and Night Owl Reviews.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Fame and fortune and everything that goes with it”.
Sometimes a trailer generates a bit of a buzz of excitement with a cinema audience and the first showings of the trailer for “Bohemian Rhapsody” was a case in point. But would the film live up to the potential?
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Debbiereadsbook (1611 KP) rated Lost in Indigo (Colors of Love #1) in Books
Mar 7, 2019
loved this!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Faced with the end of his hockey career, Mathieu goes home to heal. His long time friend brings his 20 year old son to help Matt around. But Matt is not prepared fro how he feels about Indigo, especially as he has managed to keep his sexuality a secret. But Indigo is a unique young man, genderflux, out and proud. Can Matt recover enough to play again, can he and Indigo be happy in secret?
Ordinarily, I would say here that I wanted to hear from both main characters. Indigo does not have a voice here, and ORDINARILY that would be a major gripe of mine.
BUT!!
I actually rather enjoyed this, with only Matt having a say! I made a new shelf for it and everything!
Matt is deep in the closet, he knows it, and up to now, has just made do. Breaking his leg, and going back to Canada and meeting the now grown up Indigo again makes Matt question a lot of things. And as time goes on, he realises that maybe being in the closet is not a good thing, especially when he wants Indigo in his life, and Indigo wants to be in that life, but Indigo will NOT be a dirty secret.
I loved that Matt has a dawning revelation about Indigo. His feelings grow, over time, but Indigo was all in, right from the start! Loved that his NEIGHBOUR, of all people, had Matt sussed, right from way back when they first met, but his AGENT, who knew him so much longer, had not a clue! I loved that Indigo's dad, Matt long time friend, was, while not totally against Matt and Indigo being together, he was "don't hurt my boy, or I'll break the other leg" on Matt. Papa Bear at his very best!
I loved that, when called on it, Indigo gives Matt a deadline, and Matt delivers! Loved the way he does that!
I read another series by this author, The Point Shot trilogy, and I said in that review, that I loved it because it was single person point of view, so Ms Vocey has a way of negating my dislike of single person points of view, with strong minded, loud voiced characters! I need MORE of this author, I really do!
There are a few pages of hockey commentary, I skipped those, I'm not any kinds of sports fan, at all, but I didn't feel I missed anything by doing so. Just don't hate me!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Faced with the end of his hockey career, Mathieu goes home to heal. His long time friend brings his 20 year old son to help Matt around. But Matt is not prepared fro how he feels about Indigo, especially as he has managed to keep his sexuality a secret. But Indigo is a unique young man, genderflux, out and proud. Can Matt recover enough to play again, can he and Indigo be happy in secret?
Ordinarily, I would say here that I wanted to hear from both main characters. Indigo does not have a voice here, and ORDINARILY that would be a major gripe of mine.
BUT!!
I actually rather enjoyed this, with only Matt having a say! I made a new shelf for it and everything!
Matt is deep in the closet, he knows it, and up to now, has just made do. Breaking his leg, and going back to Canada and meeting the now grown up Indigo again makes Matt question a lot of things. And as time goes on, he realises that maybe being in the closet is not a good thing, especially when he wants Indigo in his life, and Indigo wants to be in that life, but Indigo will NOT be a dirty secret.
I loved that Matt has a dawning revelation about Indigo. His feelings grow, over time, but Indigo was all in, right from the start! Loved that his NEIGHBOUR, of all people, had Matt sussed, right from way back when they first met, but his AGENT, who knew him so much longer, had not a clue! I loved that Indigo's dad, Matt long time friend, was, while not totally against Matt and Indigo being together, he was "don't hurt my boy, or I'll break the other leg" on Matt. Papa Bear at his very best!
I loved that, when called on it, Indigo gives Matt a deadline, and Matt delivers! Loved the way he does that!
I read another series by this author, The Point Shot trilogy, and I said in that review, that I loved it because it was single person point of view, so Ms Vocey has a way of negating my dislike of single person points of view, with strong minded, loud voiced characters! I need MORE of this author, I really do!
There are a few pages of hockey commentary, I skipped those, I'm not any kinds of sports fan, at all, but I didn't feel I missed anything by doing so. Just don't hate me!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Talon, Come Fly with Me in Books
Jun 5, 2019
I’m reviewing Talon, Come Fly With Me, by Gigi Sedlmayer. Here are my thoughts:
“Talon, Come Fly With Me” is a sweet book, for children, although I’m sure adults would love this, too. This is just the sort of book I would have loved to have read with my son when he was younger.
On the surface this is a story about a nine year old girl called Matica, living among the mountains of Peru with two condors she’s claimed as her own. In as much as you can claim two wild birds. But in fact it’s much more than that. The author, Gigi Sedlmayer, delves into more serious issues in a way which is suitable for children to read and understand. For example, she touches upon what it’s like to be a child with a disability, not fitting in, and feeling socially inadequate. She also covers subjects of which I sense are very close to her own heart; the protection of condors, habitat loss, and their possible extinction.
I totally felt for the condors, Tamo and Tima, when the poachers were coming to steal their egg, and there a few really tense scenes where the poachers are involved, which had me rooting for those birds to protect their young. Especially, after learning they only have one egg every two years. (If I’ve remembered that fact correctly).
But it’s not all doom and gloom. With some great laugh out loud moments, a happy ending and meaningful lessons learned, this book was a treasure of a find for me. To be honest, I wasn’t sure what to expect from a children’s book about condors, which seemed so far removed from my usual reads, but Gigi Sedlmayer is an award winning author, so I hoped it would be good. And it was. Even though I’m not a kid. ?
It was lovely to meet Talon, of whom this series of books is based around. Condors are strange looking creatures. To some these large birds look so ugly, but they’re actually quite beautiful in their own way. In fact, through this book I’ve learned so much more about them, they now have an additional fan. What a great way to introduce children (and adults) to these amazing birds! I love learning real facts in fictional books, especially about wildlife, and the author did this so well, without information dumping.
Overall: For young and the not so young, this book is a lovely introduction to not only condors and their habitat, but of living a totally different life from our own in the Peruvian mountains. (That is, if you’re not actually an Indian who can speak Arawakan, and reading this from your home in Peru! ). On top of that, it’s a positive book, which highlights how we should be more accepting of others, their cultures, and differences, whatever they may be. Whether you’re a monster of a bird, or child with a disability, things are not always as they, at first, may seem. If this sounds like your sort of read, don’t hesitate to buy it. You should love it!
“Talon, Come Fly With Me” is a sweet book, for children, although I’m sure adults would love this, too. This is just the sort of book I would have loved to have read with my son when he was younger.
On the surface this is a story about a nine year old girl called Matica, living among the mountains of Peru with two condors she’s claimed as her own. In as much as you can claim two wild birds. But in fact it’s much more than that. The author, Gigi Sedlmayer, delves into more serious issues in a way which is suitable for children to read and understand. For example, she touches upon what it’s like to be a child with a disability, not fitting in, and feeling socially inadequate. She also covers subjects of which I sense are very close to her own heart; the protection of condors, habitat loss, and their possible extinction.
I totally felt for the condors, Tamo and Tima, when the poachers were coming to steal their egg, and there a few really tense scenes where the poachers are involved, which had me rooting for those birds to protect their young. Especially, after learning they only have one egg every two years. (If I’ve remembered that fact correctly).
But it’s not all doom and gloom. With some great laugh out loud moments, a happy ending and meaningful lessons learned, this book was a treasure of a find for me. To be honest, I wasn’t sure what to expect from a children’s book about condors, which seemed so far removed from my usual reads, but Gigi Sedlmayer is an award winning author, so I hoped it would be good. And it was. Even though I’m not a kid. ?
It was lovely to meet Talon, of whom this series of books is based around. Condors are strange looking creatures. To some these large birds look so ugly, but they’re actually quite beautiful in their own way. In fact, through this book I’ve learned so much more about them, they now have an additional fan. What a great way to introduce children (and adults) to these amazing birds! I love learning real facts in fictional books, especially about wildlife, and the author did this so well, without information dumping.
Overall: For young and the not so young, this book is a lovely introduction to not only condors and their habitat, but of living a totally different life from our own in the Peruvian mountains. (That is, if you’re not actually an Indian who can speak Arawakan, and reading this from your home in Peru! ). On top of that, it’s a positive book, which highlights how we should be more accepting of others, their cultures, and differences, whatever they may be. Whether you’re a monster of a bird, or child with a disability, things are not always as they, at first, may seem. If this sounds like your sort of read, don’t hesitate to buy it. You should love it!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Holi: Festival of Colors in Tabletop Games
Apr 16, 2022
I absolutely love a beautiful game. Being a gamer, I have seen and played many gorgeous games. However, the first time I set up Holi: Festival of Colors (just Holi from here), both my 5 year old son and my slightly older mother-in-law both commented on how awesome it looked setup on the table. It has been a while since I last was so impressed by the sheer glamour of a game – and I only have the base retail version! I HAVE to get my hands on an upgrade pack or something… Just checked. I’ll have to buy the Deluxe version. Okay, placing order.
Holi is an abstract, area control, card-driven action selection (akin to Onitama) game for two to four players. In it, players are attendees at the Holi Festival and the goal is spread their favorite color onto the plaza and other players in order to increase their joy (earn VP). The winner is the player who is best able to throw their color and score joy, all while enjoying the festival!
To setup, the game owner will assemble the three-tiered board and place the appropriate sweets tokens on their spaces. The score track and Rivalry cards are set nearby so all can see. Each player receives their color’s player markers (in four delightful animal shapes), color tokens, color cards, and a helper card. The first player receives the cool lotus flower (I think) marker and the game may begin!
Holi is played over a series of turns, and continues until every player has either run out of color tokens or color cards to play. Each turn, players will take one to three actions in any order, with only one action being absolutely mandatory. This is the Throw Color action. In order to Throw Color, the active player will choose a color card from their hand of three cards to play. On these cards are indications of where a player’s marker/piece/animeeple must be located and the spaces near it to throw color tokens on the board. These color cards are reminiscent of those found in Onitama, where players may only move to specific spaces based on card grid iconography. Players will be littering the squares of the play area with their color tokens as well as attempting to hit other players’ animeeples with their color.
Players may also optionally Move at any point during the turn. This is an easy one: players may Move to any space on the current level of the board they are on, except any space inhabited by an opponent’s animeeple. These spaces could already contain sweets tokens, which can be collected by the player, or even color tokens. When a player lands in a space with their own color token, they take it back to their supply to be used again. However, landing on an opponent’s color token causes the active player to also take it into their supply, thus scoring the opponent points at the end of the game.
Finally, a player, if in a space surrounded on four edges by color tokens, may Climb Up to the next higher level. Players on the middle level will score 2 joy (VP) at the end of the game for each color token placed, while tokens on the top level will score 3 joy. Care should be taken when throwing color on the upper levels, because should an empty space reside on the level below where the token has been placed, the token will fall through to the lower level! Therefore, only color tokens will only remain placed on higher levels when another token is blocking its fall below it.
Once all players have played their cards and thrown their color tokens, the game is over and the score is tallied. 1 point is earned for each color token on the bottom level, 2 points for the middle level, and 3 points for tokens on the upper level. Players score 2 more points for each of their color tokens that found their way into opponents’ supplies. Remember those sweets tokens that players were collecting? Players will score 5 points for every player that has less sweets tokens at the end of the game. If playing with the Rivalry cards, points are also scored for any of their special circumstances (ie color tokens scoring 4 instead of 3 on the top level, or hitting opponents with colors score 2 points immediately instead of the normal 1 point, or even 10 bonus points to the player with the most color tokens on the bottom level). The player with the most points at the end of this scoring phase wins the game!
Components. I kind of already made my point about this game being a flat out stunner on the table. I will sing its praises from here to India and then back again. I normally acknowledge the artist(s) on a game once I open it for the first time, but seeing that this is a total Vincent Dutrait masterpiece, I just had to see which other games of his I own. I have made my claims in the past for my favorite board game artists and I had not included Dutrait. No more. This is brilliant and just a wonderful experience throughout. The components are all great, and that multi-layered board? I mean, come on! The intricacies found throughout and within this box are immeasurable, and I will surely be adding the Deluxe version to my collection.
Holi is a game I can pull out with almost any person or group of people and feel confident that it will give an extremely satisfying experience. The rules are relatively simple, and games are very quick. This is not a filler, but runs so smoothly and briskly that one may miscategorize it as such. The options of movement are so unrestricted, and having the ability to craft spatial situations with the cards in your hand to allow only your animeeple to climb up to the next level is just delicious. Speaking of, the sweets tokens, and really ALL of the components, are just so cute and well-illustrated. I really am finding it difficult to point out any flaws in this game. Every time I have played it I have simply had the best time with my opponents. Yeah, there’s some minor take that, but it’s all in good fun, and if you know anything about the actual celebration of Holi, participants relish coming home just covered head to toe in paint, colored water, and other colorful materials. It’s a great theme that shines through, and I look forward to each of my coming plays.
Currently, eight games we have published reviews for have earned the Golden Feather Award. At the time of this writing, I know one other will be joining that list soon, and now Holi will as well. So that is 10 total games over the 495 we have published and are sitting in queue to be published. That said, it is no surprise, I’m sure, that Holi has earned its spot among the best we have played, and I am incredibly relieved that I was able to grab a copy when I did. This will remain a favorite of mine for many years, I know it. If you are like me and appreciate an amazing production value with a comparably wonderful game underneath, then you owe it to yourself to pick up a copy of Holi as soon as you can. Or come play my copy with me. I will always be up for a play.
Holi is an abstract, area control, card-driven action selection (akin to Onitama) game for two to four players. In it, players are attendees at the Holi Festival and the goal is spread their favorite color onto the plaza and other players in order to increase their joy (earn VP). The winner is the player who is best able to throw their color and score joy, all while enjoying the festival!
To setup, the game owner will assemble the three-tiered board and place the appropriate sweets tokens on their spaces. The score track and Rivalry cards are set nearby so all can see. Each player receives their color’s player markers (in four delightful animal shapes), color tokens, color cards, and a helper card. The first player receives the cool lotus flower (I think) marker and the game may begin!
Holi is played over a series of turns, and continues until every player has either run out of color tokens or color cards to play. Each turn, players will take one to three actions in any order, with only one action being absolutely mandatory. This is the Throw Color action. In order to Throw Color, the active player will choose a color card from their hand of three cards to play. On these cards are indications of where a player’s marker/piece/animeeple must be located and the spaces near it to throw color tokens on the board. These color cards are reminiscent of those found in Onitama, where players may only move to specific spaces based on card grid iconography. Players will be littering the squares of the play area with their color tokens as well as attempting to hit other players’ animeeples with their color.
Players may also optionally Move at any point during the turn. This is an easy one: players may Move to any space on the current level of the board they are on, except any space inhabited by an opponent’s animeeple. These spaces could already contain sweets tokens, which can be collected by the player, or even color tokens. When a player lands in a space with their own color token, they take it back to their supply to be used again. However, landing on an opponent’s color token causes the active player to also take it into their supply, thus scoring the opponent points at the end of the game.
Finally, a player, if in a space surrounded on four edges by color tokens, may Climb Up to the next higher level. Players on the middle level will score 2 joy (VP) at the end of the game for each color token placed, while tokens on the top level will score 3 joy. Care should be taken when throwing color on the upper levels, because should an empty space reside on the level below where the token has been placed, the token will fall through to the lower level! Therefore, only color tokens will only remain placed on higher levels when another token is blocking its fall below it.
Once all players have played their cards and thrown their color tokens, the game is over and the score is tallied. 1 point is earned for each color token on the bottom level, 2 points for the middle level, and 3 points for tokens on the upper level. Players score 2 more points for each of their color tokens that found their way into opponents’ supplies. Remember those sweets tokens that players were collecting? Players will score 5 points for every player that has less sweets tokens at the end of the game. If playing with the Rivalry cards, points are also scored for any of their special circumstances (ie color tokens scoring 4 instead of 3 on the top level, or hitting opponents with colors score 2 points immediately instead of the normal 1 point, or even 10 bonus points to the player with the most color tokens on the bottom level). The player with the most points at the end of this scoring phase wins the game!
Components. I kind of already made my point about this game being a flat out stunner on the table. I will sing its praises from here to India and then back again. I normally acknowledge the artist(s) on a game once I open it for the first time, but seeing that this is a total Vincent Dutrait masterpiece, I just had to see which other games of his I own. I have made my claims in the past for my favorite board game artists and I had not included Dutrait. No more. This is brilliant and just a wonderful experience throughout. The components are all great, and that multi-layered board? I mean, come on! The intricacies found throughout and within this box are immeasurable, and I will surely be adding the Deluxe version to my collection.
Holi is a game I can pull out with almost any person or group of people and feel confident that it will give an extremely satisfying experience. The rules are relatively simple, and games are very quick. This is not a filler, but runs so smoothly and briskly that one may miscategorize it as such. The options of movement are so unrestricted, and having the ability to craft spatial situations with the cards in your hand to allow only your animeeple to climb up to the next level is just delicious. Speaking of, the sweets tokens, and really ALL of the components, are just so cute and well-illustrated. I really am finding it difficult to point out any flaws in this game. Every time I have played it I have simply had the best time with my opponents. Yeah, there’s some minor take that, but it’s all in good fun, and if you know anything about the actual celebration of Holi, participants relish coming home just covered head to toe in paint, colored water, and other colorful materials. It’s a great theme that shines through, and I look forward to each of my coming plays.
Currently, eight games we have published reviews for have earned the Golden Feather Award. At the time of this writing, I know one other will be joining that list soon, and now Holi will as well. So that is 10 total games over the 495 we have published and are sitting in queue to be published. That said, it is no surprise, I’m sure, that Holi has earned its spot among the best we have played, and I am incredibly relieved that I was able to grab a copy when I did. This will remain a favorite of mine for many years, I know it. If you are like me and appreciate an amazing production value with a comparably wonderful game underneath, then you owe it to yourself to pick up a copy of Holi as soon as you can. Or come play my copy with me. I will always be up for a play.
Rob Bell's book wins on pathos and good intentions, but not on solid argumentation or exegesis. He has a heart for the lost and the suffering, which is admirable. But he has to turn the Bible into theological silly putty to make his case.
There are a few major errors in Love Wins, which leads to his making other more minor mistakes. The first error is giving precedence to certain biblical themes (to the exclusion of others) over clear and specific biblical teaching. Bell makes much of themes like restoration in Scripture, but ignores themes of final punishment. By dwelling on those themes, he can transition to reading them into texts where they don't belong without being found out by biblical illiterates, such as Jesus' claim that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on the day of judgement than cities which rejected the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of reading this in its obvious sense-- that there are degrees of punishment on the final day and those who reject direct revelation of Jesus will suffer most-- he understands Jesus to be saying that there is a great deal of hope for Sodom and Gomorrah's salvation-- that their punishment was corrective instead of destructive. Even though he doesn't get anywhere close to proving his case (certainly only God knows whether or not some in Sodom will be saved, but the story of Abraham bargaining would suggest otherwise), he seems to fall back on the emotionally-driven claim that God saving everyone is a "better story" than damning some and saving others.
On his overuse of the word "story," it is one example where Bell is obnoxiously post-modern and emergent. He uses the word "story/stories" in his short book 138 times. For a book of around 200 pages, large font, and constantly skipped lines/single words on their own lines*, that's an impressive display of post-modernism.
Another major error is that he conflates a strong exclusivism with eternal conscious punishment which has the effect that when he attacks one, he is in effect attacking the other, making his job easier. In addition, he ignores annihilationism as an alternative to eternal conscious torment, which also strengthens the emotional pull of his position, since it is contrasted with an eternal conscious punishment where God damns people for never being able to hear the name of Jesus. (note: while I am annoyed at Bell's misrepresentations of eternal conscious torment, I am myself an annihilationist)
Bell explains that God will eventually win everyone over, but it must be of their accord. However, he doesn't explain how it is that everyone will be saved of their own free will. For emotional effect, Bell criticizes the eternal conscious hell camp with having a God that would turn his back on people in hell who are repenting and turning to God. Of course, this assumes that sinners turn to God on their own instead of by His grace. Bell here appears to be a Pelagian, or else doesn't know enough about soteriology to make such distinctions (a terrifying prospect for a Pastor). In any case, this is another example where he is misrepresenting eternal conscious hell proponents (the first I mentioned was when he claimed they were all strict exclusivists), which makes his book far harder to take seriously.
One strange and interesting point that Rob Bell makes comes from making the afterlife analogous to the parable of the prodigal son. He claims that hell is not being cast out of "the party," (despite Jesus' parable about the marriage supper being like a party where people are cast out of) but being at the party but not enjoying it. "Hell is being at the party," Bell claims. The message to take from that is never go to one of Rob Bell's parties.
*Bell's book is filled with skipped lines and one word sentences sitting on their own lines. I suppose this is done for dramatic effect-- indicating places where Bell would pause if this were one of his Nooma videos. However, it tends to just look irritating and faux artsy. I mostly listened to the book on Kindle's text-to-speech feature, and I could still tell when he was doing it. Like,
You put a series of short sentences on their own lines to make a point?
Really?
You do that?
And it's repetitive?
Extremely?
And annoying?
There are a few major errors in Love Wins, which leads to his making other more minor mistakes. The first error is giving precedence to certain biblical themes (to the exclusion of others) over clear and specific biblical teaching. Bell makes much of themes like restoration in Scripture, but ignores themes of final punishment. By dwelling on those themes, he can transition to reading them into texts where they don't belong without being found out by biblical illiterates, such as Jesus' claim that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on the day of judgement than cities which rejected the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of reading this in its obvious sense-- that there are degrees of punishment on the final day and those who reject direct revelation of Jesus will suffer most-- he understands Jesus to be saying that there is a great deal of hope for Sodom and Gomorrah's salvation-- that their punishment was corrective instead of destructive. Even though he doesn't get anywhere close to proving his case (certainly only God knows whether or not some in Sodom will be saved, but the story of Abraham bargaining would suggest otherwise), he seems to fall back on the emotionally-driven claim that God saving everyone is a "better story" than damning some and saving others.
On his overuse of the word "story," it is one example where Bell is obnoxiously post-modern and emergent. He uses the word "story/stories" in his short book 138 times. For a book of around 200 pages, large font, and constantly skipped lines/single words on their own lines*, that's an impressive display of post-modernism.
Another major error is that he conflates a strong exclusivism with eternal conscious punishment which has the effect that when he attacks one, he is in effect attacking the other, making his job easier. In addition, he ignores annihilationism as an alternative to eternal conscious torment, which also strengthens the emotional pull of his position, since it is contrasted with an eternal conscious punishment where God damns people for never being able to hear the name of Jesus. (note: while I am annoyed at Bell's misrepresentations of eternal conscious torment, I am myself an annihilationist)
Bell explains that God will eventually win everyone over, but it must be of their accord. However, he doesn't explain how it is that everyone will be saved of their own free will. For emotional effect, Bell criticizes the eternal conscious hell camp with having a God that would turn his back on people in hell who are repenting and turning to God. Of course, this assumes that sinners turn to God on their own instead of by His grace. Bell here appears to be a Pelagian, or else doesn't know enough about soteriology to make such distinctions (a terrifying prospect for a Pastor). In any case, this is another example where he is misrepresenting eternal conscious hell proponents (the first I mentioned was when he claimed they were all strict exclusivists), which makes his book far harder to take seriously.
One strange and interesting point that Rob Bell makes comes from making the afterlife analogous to the parable of the prodigal son. He claims that hell is not being cast out of "the party," (despite Jesus' parable about the marriage supper being like a party where people are cast out of) but being at the party but not enjoying it. "Hell is being at the party," Bell claims. The message to take from that is never go to one of Rob Bell's parties.
*Bell's book is filled with skipped lines and one word sentences sitting on their own lines. I suppose this is done for dramatic effect-- indicating places where Bell would pause if this were one of his Nooma videos. However, it tends to just look irritating and faux artsy. I mostly listened to the book on Kindle's text-to-speech feature, and I could still tell when he was doing it. Like,
You put a series of short sentences on their own lines to make a point?
Really?
You do that?
And it's repetitive?
Extremely?
And annoying?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I have put off writing this review because I honestly didn't know what, or more precisely how to sum up my feelings about this movie. That's not a typo at the top. I'm giving this one star, and honestly I nearly didn't even give it that.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020
Spectacular action set pieces done "in camera" (1 more)
Branagh and Debecki, both superb
Sound mix makes dialogue unintelligible (1 more)
In the words of Huey Lewis, "You're too darn loud"
Only Nolan and Schrödinger’s cat knows what’s going on.
Tenet is the long awaited new movie from Christopher Nolan. The movie that's set to reboot the multiplexes post-Covid. It's a manic, extremely loud, extremely baffling sci-fi cum spy rollercoaster that will please a lot of Nolan fan-boys but which left me with very mixed views.
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
Becs (244 KP) rated Monster Catchers in Books
Jul 6, 2019
Captivating middle grade novel!
You can also find this review on my blog: bookingwayreads.wordpress.com
Thank you to Smith Publicity and the author, George Brewington, for allowing me the wonderful opportunity to be a part of the Monster Catchers blog tour and for sending me a copy to read and review.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: death, kidnapping
"We can't always think of ourselves. There are so many creatures in the world that need love."
Main Characters:
Bailey Buckleby - the main character and co-owner of Buckleby and Sons. He's a monster catcher like his father, but questions how his father goes about the business. Very compassionate and has a good Frisbee throwing arm.
Dougie Buckleby - Bailey's father and the owner of Buckleby and Sons. He has taught Bailey everything he knows about being a monster catcher. A bit selfish by not really listening to Bailey, even though he always ends up being right.
Savannah - schoolmate of Bailey's turned friend. A part of the Bullhead Brigade, which Nikos is also a part of.
Henry - baby Swiss troll that is taken in by Dougie. But is he?
Candycane Boom - a loan shark that ends up teaming up with Axel Pazuzu. Later become an alley to Bailey, Savannah, and Nikos.
Nikos - a Minotaur that is hired to take down Bailey and his father but after being beaten, he joins forces.
Axel Pazuzu - a cynocephaly (part human, part dog that is a god). Known for scamming people worse than Candycane Boom. Ends up causing a lot of problems for Bailey, Savannah, and Dougie.
"Sometimes passion makes one do really, really stupid things. You mustn't beat yourself up about it."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Monster Catchers is a middle grade novel about friendship, adventure, sacrifices, saving the ones you love, with a hint of romance and drama. It starts with Bailey sitting at the register in the family shop, rereading In the Shadows of Monsters by his favorite monster catcher. Some teenage boys come in looking for trouble, but Bailey scares them off by showing them the monitor that shows the back room. This very back room is where the real business of Buckleby and Sons take place: monster catching.
Soon after the group of teenage boys leave, a customer comes in needing to have a 'pest' taken care of. Once the Buckleby's are hired, Candycane Boom comes in looking for another fairy friend for his current fairy. He picks on out while Bailey walks Henry on Whalefat Beach. This is where the two meet Axel Pazuzu a cynocephaly, which is a half human, half dog god creature. Axel tries buying Henry from Bailey, but he refuses because he doesn't want to loose this best friend. Bailey quickly heads home with Henry before Axel tries stealing Henry away.
That night, Dougie and Bailey head out to the customer's home to catch the little rascal that has been stealing all of the lights. Well, things don't go according to plane and instead of catching just one little goblin, they catch two and encounter about ten others. This doesn't turn out for Dougie as one of the goblins bites his finger off!
After they returned home, Bailey fell asleep. The next morning, he headed to school to give the report that was due but that he wasn't ready for. So he improvised and told about one of the real stories from In the Shadow of Monsters. Now, the thing with people within Monster Catchers, is that they don't believe that the monsters are real. They are in a constant denial, even when they've seen the monsters themselves. This sparks some major debate in Bailey's class.
Savannah ends up following Bailey back to the store where she is introduced to all the monsters in the back room and even eventually meets Axel Pazuzu when they head to the beach to walk Henry. Axel hires Candycane to get Henry from the Buckleby's. Well, this causes a bunch of different action packed scenes that will leave you turning the pages until the ending.
When you think monsters, you don't think of a father-son duo saving California. But that's just what Dougie and Bailey Buckleby do. For the right price, they will capture anything from goblins and trolls to harpies and fairies. If it's a monster of any sort, the Buckleby's are the one's to call. But, Bailey soon finds out that his father has been lying to him all of his life and it must be he who saves the people of the world. Monster Catcher is a fast-paced, action-packed adventure that will capture young hearts everywhere.
Character/ Story background and development -
I was generally surprised at how much development was within this little novel. Especially for it being book one in a series and a debut! Bailey's and his fathers development were some of the best. The two go from best buds to Bailey questioning everything about him to having to sacrifice him for the sake of the world. It just blew me away the relationship that the duo had as they were massively different, but brought very similar aspects to the relationship.
Plot -
George Brewington weaves lessons of friendship, morals, and action into this fantasy filled debut. Bailey's interest in monsters is heartwarming, especially when he finds out that monsters have feelings and all aren't bad like they are perceived to be.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I honestly didn't seem to find any spelling or grammatical errors that popped out or took away from the overall story. Monster Catchers is a very well-written novel.
Enjoyment -
I really enjoyed going on an adventure with Bailey and all the lovable monsters. I will most defiantly be rereading this. One thing I rather enjoyed, that I have to point out, is how George Brewington mixed extremely important world issues like: environmental issues, understanding differences, and sacrifices along with adding that fantasy aspect that is common among middle-grade novels.
Overall -
With the interwoven lessons and morals, the fun and quirky lines, the cliff hangers, discovering oneself, understanding differences, Monster Catchers encourages the reader to think beyond the words that are written.
Do I recommend? -
Yes! I highly recommend The Monster Catchers by George Brewington. It was such a cute little novel and I need more!!
"We either try or die, Bailey Boy."
Thank you to Smith Publicity and the author, George Brewington, for allowing me the wonderful opportunity to be a part of the Monster Catchers blog tour and for sending me a copy to read and review.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: death, kidnapping
"We can't always think of ourselves. There are so many creatures in the world that need love."
Main Characters:
Bailey Buckleby - the main character and co-owner of Buckleby and Sons. He's a monster catcher like his father, but questions how his father goes about the business. Very compassionate and has a good Frisbee throwing arm.
Dougie Buckleby - Bailey's father and the owner of Buckleby and Sons. He has taught Bailey everything he knows about being a monster catcher. A bit selfish by not really listening to Bailey, even though he always ends up being right.
Savannah - schoolmate of Bailey's turned friend. A part of the Bullhead Brigade, which Nikos is also a part of.
Henry - baby Swiss troll that is taken in by Dougie. But is he?
Candycane Boom - a loan shark that ends up teaming up with Axel Pazuzu. Later become an alley to Bailey, Savannah, and Nikos.
Nikos - a Minotaur that is hired to take down Bailey and his father but after being beaten, he joins forces.
Axel Pazuzu - a cynocephaly (part human, part dog that is a god). Known for scamming people worse than Candycane Boom. Ends up causing a lot of problems for Bailey, Savannah, and Dougie.
"Sometimes passion makes one do really, really stupid things. You mustn't beat yourself up about it."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Monster Catchers is a middle grade novel about friendship, adventure, sacrifices, saving the ones you love, with a hint of romance and drama. It starts with Bailey sitting at the register in the family shop, rereading In the Shadows of Monsters by his favorite monster catcher. Some teenage boys come in looking for trouble, but Bailey scares them off by showing them the monitor that shows the back room. This very back room is where the real business of Buckleby and Sons take place: monster catching.
Soon after the group of teenage boys leave, a customer comes in needing to have a 'pest' taken care of. Once the Buckleby's are hired, Candycane Boom comes in looking for another fairy friend for his current fairy. He picks on out while Bailey walks Henry on Whalefat Beach. This is where the two meet Axel Pazuzu a cynocephaly, which is a half human, half dog god creature. Axel tries buying Henry from Bailey, but he refuses because he doesn't want to loose this best friend. Bailey quickly heads home with Henry before Axel tries stealing Henry away.
That night, Dougie and Bailey head out to the customer's home to catch the little rascal that has been stealing all of the lights. Well, things don't go according to plane and instead of catching just one little goblin, they catch two and encounter about ten others. This doesn't turn out for Dougie as one of the goblins bites his finger off!
After they returned home, Bailey fell asleep. The next morning, he headed to school to give the report that was due but that he wasn't ready for. So he improvised and told about one of the real stories from In the Shadow of Monsters. Now, the thing with people within Monster Catchers, is that they don't believe that the monsters are real. They are in a constant denial, even when they've seen the monsters themselves. This sparks some major debate in Bailey's class.
Savannah ends up following Bailey back to the store where she is introduced to all the monsters in the back room and even eventually meets Axel Pazuzu when they head to the beach to walk Henry. Axel hires Candycane to get Henry from the Buckleby's. Well, this causes a bunch of different action packed scenes that will leave you turning the pages until the ending.
When you think monsters, you don't think of a father-son duo saving California. But that's just what Dougie and Bailey Buckleby do. For the right price, they will capture anything from goblins and trolls to harpies and fairies. If it's a monster of any sort, the Buckleby's are the one's to call. But, Bailey soon finds out that his father has been lying to him all of his life and it must be he who saves the people of the world. Monster Catcher is a fast-paced, action-packed adventure that will capture young hearts everywhere.
Character/ Story background and development -
I was generally surprised at how much development was within this little novel. Especially for it being book one in a series and a debut! Bailey's and his fathers development were some of the best. The two go from best buds to Bailey questioning everything about him to having to sacrifice him for the sake of the world. It just blew me away the relationship that the duo had as they were massively different, but brought very similar aspects to the relationship.
Plot -
George Brewington weaves lessons of friendship, morals, and action into this fantasy filled debut. Bailey's interest in monsters is heartwarming, especially when he finds out that monsters have feelings and all aren't bad like they are perceived to be.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I honestly didn't seem to find any spelling or grammatical errors that popped out or took away from the overall story. Monster Catchers is a very well-written novel.
Enjoyment -
I really enjoyed going on an adventure with Bailey and all the lovable monsters. I will most defiantly be rereading this. One thing I rather enjoyed, that I have to point out, is how George Brewington mixed extremely important world issues like: environmental issues, understanding differences, and sacrifices along with adding that fantasy aspect that is common among middle-grade novels.
Overall -
With the interwoven lessons and morals, the fun and quirky lines, the cliff hangers, discovering oneself, understanding differences, Monster Catchers encourages the reader to think beyond the words that are written.
Do I recommend? -
Yes! I highly recommend The Monster Catchers by George Brewington. It was such a cute little novel and I need more!!
"We either try or die, Bailey Boy."