Smashbomb

Search

Search results

All (4560)

Content

Hazel (1853 KP) rated Minology in Books

Dec 17, 2018

I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.

Have you ever wondered how your body works? Author Mark Murphy has his theory. The human body is full of little creatures known as min, and it is no different for 34 year old Will. Min live in every part of the body doing different jobs to make each part of the body work they way it should. However, these min are much like the humans they inhabit: they have their own jobs, their own lives, their own feelings and their own opinions.
Penelope Potts is a bored 15 year old min living in the left ear department with nothing much to do. Yet one day life becomes much more exciting when she and her best friend Henry are selected to take part in the trials to try and win themselves a position in Central Head.

Whilst this is taking place, however, the evil leader of the min, Sananab (incidentally bananas spelt backwards) has come up with a malicious plan that may change the life of the min forever. When Sananab discovers that Penelope is doing very well in the trials he becomes very interested in her. But when Penelope discovers his evil plan her life is immediately in danger.

Murphy’s ideas are very imaginative but are also similar to the Numbskulls in the Beano – perhaps this even had some influence on his novel? It is fun to envisage tiny beings living in human bodies making sure every organ works properly. The min themselves are an interesting bunch. Apart from Penelope, none appear to be that intelligent leading to humorous scenes, which could have the reader laughing out loud.

Minology despite the “ology” is not a heavy read and can be taken at the reader’s own pace. Whether they want something to read leisurely or something to read quickly this book will be more than adequate. And, if you like the min so much and want to read even more about their funny lives, there is a second book!

Kudos

Deborah (162 KP) rated The Queen's Confidante in Books

Dec 21, 2018

The book has three mysteries at the heart - was Arthur Tudor really murdered (I confess this is a new theory to me and not sure how credible this is), what happened to the so-called Princes in the Tower and what became of Lord Lovell after the Battle of Stoke. Personally, I think the latter is done a great disservice here, based on the historical knowns of his character. Even so, what happens and with the hero and heroine's consent is pretty horrific - yes, I know the historical basis for this, but it doesn't do much good for liking the supposed protagonists! Also the rather melodramatic language as the book nears it's conclusion - monster, beast, devil - it just goes a bit over the top.

I could explain a bit more about why I wasn't keen on the book, but it would be difficult to do without spoilers, so I suppose I will leave that there. I will just say that I find it hard to credit that when Elizabeth Woodville came out of sanctuary in 1484 she didn't know what had happened to her sons and therefore one would assume that Elizabeth of York would also have known - and she was happy enough to be honoured at her uncle's court that Yuletide. Having the Elizabeth of this book rail against Yorkists when she came from what seemed a close family does seem to me to be somewhat absurd.

There are, also, a number of errors which could and should have been picked up. Another reviewer has already mentioned the note which is shown to two other people on one page and on the following page is apparently a secret! There are also TWO erroneous mentions of Richard duke of York, when the context is reasonably clear the person actually referred to is York's son, Richard Duke of Gloucester - elementary mistake that should not have been made!

Perhaps I have read too many non-fiction books about the period and have formed my own strong opinions to enjoy this book as much as some other reviewers. If it is going to be your 'thing' I can only give you my opinion and leave it to yourselves to determine.

Kudos

JT (287 KP) rated Moneyball (2011) in Movies

Mar 10, 2020

Moneyball (2011)

2011 | Drama

7.7

(6 Ratings)

Movie Rating

If you like your baseball and statistics, if you know your ERA from your RBIs then this is surely going to be a film not to miss. Directed by Bennett Miller the film stars Brad Pitt as Billy Beane the general manager of the Oakland Athletics during the 2002 season in which the club went on a 20 game winning streak.

The theory and reason behind this success was using player stats and computer generated analysis to pick a team of relative nobodies, a practice that is now used by almost every baseball club in the National and American leagues today.

During this monumental season the club achieved 103 total wins doing so on a tiny budget, matching the mighty New York Yankees whose budget was well over $100m. To say that Beane’s method was out there was an understatement, and not everyone agreed, and in some cases they still don’t. The film however is living proof that it did work!

Beane’s sidekick in all of this and one of the only other people backing him was Peter Brand (Hill) the brains, whose ability to value and assess players on their potential to get to first plate and thus increase the likehood of runs was almost invaluable.

So how do you make a film about pure stats an exciting one, there is not enough live action to depend on, although the clubs pivotal game to reach twenty straight wins is pretty amazing when you see how they almost let an elven run lead slip through their fingers.

The acting is solid, Pitt and Hill gel extremely well and Philip Seymour Hoffman ads a gruff dimension as the clubs manager, seemingly having to succumb to Beane and Brand’s mathematical insanity.

You don’t need to be a fan of the game to enjoy this one, its an underdog story from the perspective of the back room and at the end when you see just how much Beane turned down to take the same post at the Boston Red Sox you can really get a feel for just how much it all meant to him.