Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The third film in the popular “Divergent” series is here and will follow the pattern of recent book based films of splitting the finale into two films. In “The Divergent Series: Allegiant Part 1”, we catch up with Tris (Shailene Woodley), and Four (Theo James), shortly after the events of the previous film.
The wall has been opened and residents seek to leave the city and see what lies beyond. This is cut short when a power grab arises as Four’s mother is putting people on trial for supporting the last regime and executions or a common place as mob mentality has arisen.
Risking it all, Tris, Four, and a few companions make a daring brake and discover a wasteland beyond the wall before being taken in by a seemingly ideal community under the leadership of David (Jeff Daniels). It is learned that via sophisticated technology, they have watched Tris and the others as well as their society for ages as they were conducting a social experiment to undo evils of the previous world which lead to war.
Tris is highly prized as she is seen as genetically pure and David hopes to find out why and how so it can be replicated for the betterment of humanity. Naturally things are not always as they appear and before long, Tris, Four, and the others are forced to pick sides especially with a civil war brewing back at home.
The movie has some decent visuals but relies on the characters to carry the film. In many ways this is the downfall of the film as Woodley simply does not emote and James is very one-dimensional. Only Miles Teller and Jeff Daniels show any real or sustained emotion throughout the film.
There is also the matter of plot holes such as a society which amazing surveillance technology but they could not see a fairly obvious and common effort used during the finale of the film.
The movie is setting up the finale which hopefully will bring some advancement and satisfying closure to the series and characters. For now the film is a flawed but at times entertaining entry which should keep fans happy until the final film arrives.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/18/divergent-series-allegiant-part-1/
The wall has been opened and residents seek to leave the city and see what lies beyond. This is cut short when a power grab arises as Four’s mother is putting people on trial for supporting the last regime and executions or a common place as mob mentality has arisen.
Risking it all, Tris, Four, and a few companions make a daring brake and discover a wasteland beyond the wall before being taken in by a seemingly ideal community under the leadership of David (Jeff Daniels). It is learned that via sophisticated technology, they have watched Tris and the others as well as their society for ages as they were conducting a social experiment to undo evils of the previous world which lead to war.
Tris is highly prized as she is seen as genetically pure and David hopes to find out why and how so it can be replicated for the betterment of humanity. Naturally things are not always as they appear and before long, Tris, Four, and the others are forced to pick sides especially with a civil war brewing back at home.
The movie has some decent visuals but relies on the characters to carry the film. In many ways this is the downfall of the film as Woodley simply does not emote and James is very one-dimensional. Only Miles Teller and Jeff Daniels show any real or sustained emotion throughout the film.
There is also the matter of plot holes such as a society which amazing surveillance technology but they could not see a fairly obvious and common effort used during the finale of the film.
The movie is setting up the finale which hopefully will bring some advancement and satisfying closure to the series and characters. For now the film is a flawed but at times entertaining entry which should keep fans happy until the final film arrives.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/18/divergent-series-allegiant-part-1/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated About a Girl (Metamorphoses, #3) in Books
Feb 13, 2018
This book tells the story of Tally, who at age 18, seems confident that her life will turn out just as she had planned - summer spent with her best friend, Shane; head to college; become an astronomer... But when Tally starts wondering about her past, she finds herself on a quest to learn more about mother and father, and her neatly ordered life is quickly turned upside down.
This is third book in the Metamorphoses trilogy - Tally, we learn, is the daughter of Aurora, whom Aurora left on her best friend's (now termed "Aunt Beast") doorstep to raise, along with Aunt Beast's best friend, Raoul and his husband, Henri. (All characters easily recognizable if you've read the first two books.)
Needless to say, this is an interesting book. I actually really liked Tally. She's different from Aurora and Maia and even Cass. Tally finds relief in the order of planets and stars. She is a good kid, overall, with a pretty common upbringing, despite the fact it was by her "Aunt" and her friends.
However, when Tally is shown a picture of Jack (and Aurora) and sent off to the West Coast by the shadowy Mr. M - whom she just knows as her friendly neighbor - everything changes. She finds herself sucked into the strangeness of the town where Jack lives, where she can't remember things and time just slips away. As always, the "weirdness" in McCarry's writing comes out, and I'm always not 100% sure I'm following things correctly. I won't spoil the book, but I can point out that Tally meets Maddy there, for whom she falls for deeply.
I probably liked this book the best of the three - I rooted for Tally, and I loved that this book featured a transgender character (Tally's friend Shane) and a lesbian relationship (between Tally and Maddy). Great to see that thrown into a YA book without it truly being the focus of anything. As always, the mystical side of McCarry's novel threw me a bit, but I found it less disconcerting in this one than the previous two, for some reason. While I would have loved more resolution to the story of everyone, this book did seem a fairly fitting bookend to the tales McCarry has woven for these characters.
(Note: I received an ARC of this book from Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.)
This is third book in the Metamorphoses trilogy - Tally, we learn, is the daughter of Aurora, whom Aurora left on her best friend's (now termed "Aunt Beast") doorstep to raise, along with Aunt Beast's best friend, Raoul and his husband, Henri. (All characters easily recognizable if you've read the first two books.)
Needless to say, this is an interesting book. I actually really liked Tally. She's different from Aurora and Maia and even Cass. Tally finds relief in the order of planets and stars. She is a good kid, overall, with a pretty common upbringing, despite the fact it was by her "Aunt" and her friends.
However, when Tally is shown a picture of Jack (and Aurora) and sent off to the West Coast by the shadowy Mr. M - whom she just knows as her friendly neighbor - everything changes. She finds herself sucked into the strangeness of the town where Jack lives, where she can't remember things and time just slips away. As always, the "weirdness" in McCarry's writing comes out, and I'm always not 100% sure I'm following things correctly. I won't spoil the book, but I can point out that Tally meets Maddy there, for whom she falls for deeply.
I probably liked this book the best of the three - I rooted for Tally, and I loved that this book featured a transgender character (Tally's friend Shane) and a lesbian relationship (between Tally and Maddy). Great to see that thrown into a YA book without it truly being the focus of anything. As always, the mystical side of McCarry's novel threw me a bit, but I found it less disconcerting in this one than the previous two, for some reason. While I would have loved more resolution to the story of everyone, this book did seem a fairly fitting bookend to the tales McCarry has woven for these characters.
(Note: I received an ARC of this book from Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Car Dogs (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
One of the things that universally connects us in this world is driving. Eventually, in life, the other factor involved is buying a vehicle. Depending on your experience, it can be nerve wracking, intensely crazy or enjoyable. Almost everyone has a story about the first car they purchased. For some it is the entire process, spotting THE car or coming up against the salespeople. This common thread allows us to identify with each other. With Car Dogs, you will find yourself immersed in the world of car sales.
Mark Chamberlain (Patrick J. Adams) is a sales manager at his father’s dealership. He is in line to get his own shop once he fulfills the quota assigned by his dad. We see Mark go through his day handling purchase issues, client issues and his salespeople in the bullpen. Christian (George Lopez, playing against type) is one of the top dogs at Chamberlain. He gets assigned a fresh rookie on the day that he is busting to make his numbers. Sharon (Nia Vardalos) Is the clever sales guru that is always in competition with Christian. She plays Sharon as a tough but smart sales rep with a warm likability. George Lopez and Nia Vardalos are both well known for comedic parts and they play against type with such care that their performances are refreshingly unexpected.
Patrick J. Adams evokes the stress and pressure that he slowly builds throughout the day, taking us with him as the clock counts down to the hour of reckoning that is the sales goal of 35 cars for the day. This number is enforced by Mark’s father Malcolm (Chris Mulkey) embodying the old school stereotype of a car dealer, pushing his son in a supremely passive-aggressive dance with his brown nosing sadist sidekick Mike (Josh Hopkins).
Filmed on location in Scottsdale, Arizona. Directed by Adam Collis, taking us on a road trip that has familiar sites and unexpected surprises. Mark Edward King’s script pulls the curtain back from a world we rarely see the inner workings and shows us that even car salesmen, although can be real jerks to get the sale, are also human.
Whether you have bought or sold a car. Shopped or searched for the right one, dealt with some B.S. artist or had a fantastic experience. This movie provides the viewer with moments at a dealership that are so familiar, yet gives us a look at how they function behind the sales desk.
Mark Chamberlain (Patrick J. Adams) is a sales manager at his father’s dealership. He is in line to get his own shop once he fulfills the quota assigned by his dad. We see Mark go through his day handling purchase issues, client issues and his salespeople in the bullpen. Christian (George Lopez, playing against type) is one of the top dogs at Chamberlain. He gets assigned a fresh rookie on the day that he is busting to make his numbers. Sharon (Nia Vardalos) Is the clever sales guru that is always in competition with Christian. She plays Sharon as a tough but smart sales rep with a warm likability. George Lopez and Nia Vardalos are both well known for comedic parts and they play against type with such care that their performances are refreshingly unexpected.
Patrick J. Adams evokes the stress and pressure that he slowly builds throughout the day, taking us with him as the clock counts down to the hour of reckoning that is the sales goal of 35 cars for the day. This number is enforced by Mark’s father Malcolm (Chris Mulkey) embodying the old school stereotype of a car dealer, pushing his son in a supremely passive-aggressive dance with his brown nosing sadist sidekick Mike (Josh Hopkins).
Filmed on location in Scottsdale, Arizona. Directed by Adam Collis, taking us on a road trip that has familiar sites and unexpected surprises. Mark Edward King’s script pulls the curtain back from a world we rarely see the inner workings and shows us that even car salesmen, although can be real jerks to get the sale, are also human.
Whether you have bought or sold a car. Shopped or searched for the right one, dealt with some B.S. artist or had a fantastic experience. This movie provides the viewer with moments at a dealership that are so familiar, yet gives us a look at how they function behind the sales desk.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Queens Corgi (2019) in Movies
Jul 13, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Queens Corgi is an animated children's movie about Rex, the Queen's favourite who, after a disastrous visit from Donald Trump, is tricked into leaving the palace and winds up in the dog pound. This is a common formula in children’s movies both animated and live action and I'm sure most of us can guess what happens next, Rex tries to get back home and, on the way makes some friends and falls in love. So when my daughter wanted to see it I though I'd be in for a funny, possibly sad film. God I was wrong. There is so much wrong with this film and it all seems to go wrong from the scene where Donald Trump visits the Queen and I really wish I could say my problems were politically motivated but unfortunately the film was just that bad.
The character of Trump was reduced to a stereotypical American tourist with Melania passing comments about the size of Donald’s (big) hands being one of the things that attracted her to him.
The problems really start when Melania and the Queen decided it will be a good idea to breed their respective corgis. Melania's Corgi, Mitzi, who is made up in heave eye shadow and lipstick is instantly judged and disliked by all the Queens corgis (both Male and female). Melania's Corgi then passes judgment on all the corgis until she comes to Rex who she decided she wants. The two dogs are then left in a room together after being told by Trump to grab him by the pups.
Now I just want to make the following clear:
1) I've seen plenty of movies where the (normally timid/nerdy) male character is hit on by the strong scary bully female and this normally for comedy value. Although these scenes could be seen as problematic they are normally played for laughs.
2) I understand that dog breeders do choose dogs and put them together to mate. However, as the animals in this film are given human personality's the situation is different.
So when the two dogs are left in the room we are treated to long scene where Mitzi tries to get Rex to mate with her, because Rex wants none of it Mitzi chases him around the room, grabs him, stops him from leaving and generally won’t take no for an answer. This is not done playfully.
Later in the film, Rex is in a dog pound, one of his cell mates starts listing the rules of the pound, rule one, there is no fight club. Now, this may have been ok if it was a one time throw away line, kids films often have little jokes for adults. However, it's not a throw away line, it's used more than once, including the first time the dogs are at a fight club. Yes, the top dog, called Butch, keeps order by making any dog he doesn't like fight. We see a dog carried off on stretcher, Rex is almost thrown into a fire and is only saved when Butch is knock out in one punch which also knocks out half his teeth.
Of course Rex and his new friends make it back to the palace and beat the main villain who is sent off with Trump and Mitzi. Remember non of the palace dogs liked Mitzi and she has all already said she doesn't understand the word no so this has implications for Charlie’s futures. It's ok though because he's the bad guy (not).
So we have a children's film with dog fights, attempted rape, implied rape, judging on appearance and a dull story, that seem find the line between children’s jokes and the adult ones the only reason I'm giving this one star is because it avoids getting political with Trump.
The character of Trump was reduced to a stereotypical American tourist with Melania passing comments about the size of Donald’s (big) hands being one of the things that attracted her to him.
The problems really start when Melania and the Queen decided it will be a good idea to breed their respective corgis. Melania's Corgi, Mitzi, who is made up in heave eye shadow and lipstick is instantly judged and disliked by all the Queens corgis (both Male and female). Melania's Corgi then passes judgment on all the corgis until she comes to Rex who she decided she wants. The two dogs are then left in a room together after being told by Trump to grab him by the pups.
Now I just want to make the following clear:
1) I've seen plenty of movies where the (normally timid/nerdy) male character is hit on by the strong scary bully female and this normally for comedy value. Although these scenes could be seen as problematic they are normally played for laughs.
2) I understand that dog breeders do choose dogs and put them together to mate. However, as the animals in this film are given human personality's the situation is different.
So when the two dogs are left in the room we are treated to long scene where Mitzi tries to get Rex to mate with her, because Rex wants none of it Mitzi chases him around the room, grabs him, stops him from leaving and generally won’t take no for an answer. This is not done playfully.
Later in the film, Rex is in a dog pound, one of his cell mates starts listing the rules of the pound, rule one, there is no fight club. Now, this may have been ok if it was a one time throw away line, kids films often have little jokes for adults. However, it's not a throw away line, it's used more than once, including the first time the dogs are at a fight club. Yes, the top dog, called Butch, keeps order by making any dog he doesn't like fight. We see a dog carried off on stretcher, Rex is almost thrown into a fire and is only saved when Butch is knock out in one punch which also knocks out half his teeth.
Of course Rex and his new friends make it back to the palace and beat the main villain who is sent off with Trump and Mitzi. Remember non of the palace dogs liked Mitzi and she has all already said she doesn't understand the word no so this has implications for Charlie’s futures. It's ok though because he's the bad guy (not).
So we have a children's film with dog fights, attempted rape, implied rape, judging on appearance and a dull story, that seem find the line between children’s jokes and the adult ones the only reason I'm giving this one star is because it avoids getting political with Trump.
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Dangerous Boy in Books
Nov 6, 2017
Filled with cliches, but a quick read
I would call this a guilty pleasure book. Why? Because it’s not the most greatest read out there but you read it anyway because something about it just draws you to continue reading. Whether it be characters, or the cheesy plot albeit ridiculous as it may be.
This is supposed to be a modern day retelling of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I see some similarities although the way it’s explained (the soul thing) is a bit of a stretch. At least with Jekyll/Hyde he had something concrete and explanatory (eg; the serum that gets him to change personalities).
The book itself is filled with oodles of cliches so it’s not for everyone. It may induce eye rolls and may have some readers frustrated and quit reading altogether. Why did I keep reading? It’s a very simple plot and there’s not much when it comes to twists and turns, there’s a bit of a creepy and chilly factor which was actually pretty well done and I stuck with it. Despite the plot being as it is, the writing was pretty good and I enjoyed it.
A couple of things however. I’m not sure what Madison really had to do with the story. She’s just your average mean girl but doesn’t really add to the plot (except for being a previous romance. Woopie) so to me, this was just unnecessary filler moments in the novel.
Harper isn’t really that likable and there were moments where she goes off the deep end into the realm of stupidity. I do admit though, she’s got good chemistry with Logan and the writing that conveys their feelings towards each other is well done. Logan seems to be a great boyfriend if it wasn’t for that fatal flaw. Harper does tend to have some annoying qualities to herself - being a forgiving doormat for one, and lacking common sense in particular stages of the story (seriously? You’re going to break into a house and you say: “hello?” can we say first one to die in a horror movie here?)
Although this book has quite a few flaws, I couldn’t help but enjoy reading it. It’s a very quick read and it’s like you’re watching a B movie but you enjoyed it despite the many cliches and things you normally wouldn’t watch. There’s just something about it that makes you want to continue reading it. I’m not going to recommend this one, but if you’re up for a quick read to get back into the reading groove, why not?
This is supposed to be a modern day retelling of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I see some similarities although the way it’s explained (the soul thing) is a bit of a stretch. At least with Jekyll/Hyde he had something concrete and explanatory (eg; the serum that gets him to change personalities).
The book itself is filled with oodles of cliches so it’s not for everyone. It may induce eye rolls and may have some readers frustrated and quit reading altogether. Why did I keep reading? It’s a very simple plot and there’s not much when it comes to twists and turns, there’s a bit of a creepy and chilly factor which was actually pretty well done and I stuck with it. Despite the plot being as it is, the writing was pretty good and I enjoyed it.
A couple of things however. I’m not sure what Madison really had to do with the story. She’s just your average mean girl but doesn’t really add to the plot (except for being a previous romance. Woopie) so to me, this was just unnecessary filler moments in the novel.
Harper isn’t really that likable and there were moments where she goes off the deep end into the realm of stupidity. I do admit though, she’s got good chemistry with Logan and the writing that conveys their feelings towards each other is well done. Logan seems to be a great boyfriend if it wasn’t for that fatal flaw. Harper does tend to have some annoying qualities to herself - being a forgiving doormat for one, and lacking common sense in particular stages of the story (seriously? You’re going to break into a house and you say: “hello?” can we say first one to die in a horror movie here?)
Although this book has quite a few flaws, I couldn’t help but enjoy reading it. It’s a very quick read and it’s like you’re watching a B movie but you enjoyed it despite the many cliches and things you normally wouldn’t watch. There’s just something about it that makes you want to continue reading it. I’m not going to recommend this one, but if you’re up for a quick read to get back into the reading groove, why not?
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hostage (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Chief of Police Jeff Talley (Bruce Willis) is a man filled with turmoil. A former S.W.A.T. officer and top hostage negotiator for the Los Angeles Police Department, Talley now toils away in a quite California town where crime is light and very infrequent. The change in locales was made necessary for Jeff in the aftermath of a hostage negotiation where things did not go accordingly leaving Jeff with more questions than answers.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated The Art of Letting Go by Mauwe in Music
Jun 7, 2019
Mauwe (Portia & Jay) is a Bristol-based indie-pop duo. Not too long ago, they released their debut EP, entitled, “The Art of Letting Go”.
The 5-track project is a chronicle of love lessons that Mauwe learned in life. Also, hopefulness is the common theme throughout the EP.
“That’s All”
That’s All wishes an old flame the best. Nothing more nothing less. The song is sung from a female’s point of view, where the woman in question is thinking about her ex-boyfriend.
She knows their relationship is over. Plus, she’s dealing with the fact that he has moved on with another woman. But that doesn’t stop her from telling him that she’s thinking about him.
“Smoked a Pack”
Smoke a Pack is an edgy song about a woman that’s waiting for a phone call from a man she regrets being in a relationship with. While waiting, she realizes she should have never gotten into a relationship with him in the first place.
The woman is thinking about her friends warning her not to get into the relationship and other regretful actions. The situation is nerve-racking so she smokes a pack of cigarettes. She’s trying to release her stress and anger the cheapest way she knows how.
“Gold”
Gold is an apprehensive song about falling for someone new. The song places a woman that’s drunk in love with a man that makes her feel like gold.
The woman compares her current state of drunken love to someone who is on drink number three. Depending on what that person is drinking, probably means she’s feeling good inside.
“Walls”
Walls is an emotional R&B/Soul ballad. It’s about a woman who’s losing her mind. Although she’s out of a broken relationship, her heart is still imprisoned there.
The woman is going insane trying to forget her ex’s name. She used to have control, but since he let her go, she writes on the walls to past time. Sometimes, love is a pretty gloomy thing isn’t it?
“Strangers”
If you’ve ever taken the time to look back at some of life’s more challenging moments, accompanied by a tub of Ben & Jerry’s or a bottle of wine, you’ll probably relate to Strangers.
The song is built on the sereneness of solitary thought. On moments that give us the clarity needed to see things how they really were.
Mauwe’s songwriting directions have a clear lineage to what they were influenced by prior to their formation.
Jay outlines contemporary folk and electronica as his staples growing up.
In conclusion, we highly recommend that you listen to Mauwe’s debut EP, entitled, “The Art of Letting Go”.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/mauwe-art-letting-go/
The 5-track project is a chronicle of love lessons that Mauwe learned in life. Also, hopefulness is the common theme throughout the EP.
“That’s All”
That’s All wishes an old flame the best. Nothing more nothing less. The song is sung from a female’s point of view, where the woman in question is thinking about her ex-boyfriend.
She knows their relationship is over. Plus, she’s dealing with the fact that he has moved on with another woman. But that doesn’t stop her from telling him that she’s thinking about him.
“Smoked a Pack”
Smoke a Pack is an edgy song about a woman that’s waiting for a phone call from a man she regrets being in a relationship with. While waiting, she realizes she should have never gotten into a relationship with him in the first place.
The woman is thinking about her friends warning her not to get into the relationship and other regretful actions. The situation is nerve-racking so she smokes a pack of cigarettes. She’s trying to release her stress and anger the cheapest way she knows how.
“Gold”
Gold is an apprehensive song about falling for someone new. The song places a woman that’s drunk in love with a man that makes her feel like gold.
The woman compares her current state of drunken love to someone who is on drink number three. Depending on what that person is drinking, probably means she’s feeling good inside.
“Walls”
Walls is an emotional R&B/Soul ballad. It’s about a woman who’s losing her mind. Although she’s out of a broken relationship, her heart is still imprisoned there.
The woman is going insane trying to forget her ex’s name. She used to have control, but since he let her go, she writes on the walls to past time. Sometimes, love is a pretty gloomy thing isn’t it?
“Strangers”
If you’ve ever taken the time to look back at some of life’s more challenging moments, accompanied by a tub of Ben & Jerry’s or a bottle of wine, you’ll probably relate to Strangers.
The song is built on the sereneness of solitary thought. On moments that give us the clarity needed to see things how they really were.
Mauwe’s songwriting directions have a clear lineage to what they were influenced by prior to their formation.
Jay outlines contemporary folk and electronica as his staples growing up.
In conclusion, we highly recommend that you listen to Mauwe’s debut EP, entitled, “The Art of Letting Go”.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/mauwe-art-letting-go/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Times are tough in Hells Kitchen, people need to diversify to stay on top. Three gangsters decide to do just that but manage to fall on the wrong side of the law on their first outing. As they are locked up their wives are left to pick up the pieces. They'll be looked after, that's the promise they hear but the money they get won't even cover their rent.
The three women are desperate but see an opportunity in the gap their imprisoned husbands have left. What the mob needs is a woman's touch.
Melissa McCarthy amuses me, her comedy really hits the spot, then she appeared in Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I was so happy to see she could do drama too. Tiffany Haddish was much the same, I've seen her in lots of comedy and find her to be entertaining (if a little over played) so when her name popped up on this I was interested to see how she handled "sensible". I was very pleased with the result, but we'll get there.
The look of everything in The Kitchen felt spot on. All the little touches really pulled the 70's feel together and gace each character their own vibe that lined up perfectly with their development through the film.
Music certainly helped on this front, though part of me was sad that they used "It's A Man's Man's Man's World." I know it fits perfectly with the tone and the subject but it felt so cliché for that to be the first thing we go and I actually sighed when it came on.
Our three wives make an interesting mix as a team, a collection that you couldn't see being friends under normal circumstances but they've been brought together out of necessity. I liked the way we got to see their lives unfold from the beginning. Their home life with their husbands and then their reactions as the men are charged. Kathy looking upset, Ruby with a look of disappointment that he should have been smarter, and Claire's smile as the court gives her a reprieve from his violence.
We see their progression to becoming a success in town happen quite quickly on screen and I thought that worked well. It left all the internal politics out until there was something bigger at stake to deal with.
The women all take on a path of their own, it diversifies their abilities but you know that something has to give. Every little piece that's added to their story felt like it was right to be there, nothing was unnecessary.
There's a certain amount of stereotype acting in The Kitchen but it works well when it comes to the gangs and their interactions together. Both Kathy (McCarthy) and Ruby (Haddish) have that in them too at one point or another but it's a little less evident in general.
As I said at the beginning, Melissa McCarthy's step into drama had been a hit with me and her portrayal of Kathy was no different. She went from an attentive wife and mother who minds her own business to a mob boss and entrepeneur, it's such a smooth transition that you'd wonder if she was doing something fishy on the side already.
Tiffany Haddish was amazing too, her dramatic skills really brought Ruby to life and it was a wonderfully believable performance.
Then there's Claire played by Elisabeth Moss. She's had great success in The Handmaid's Tale and I do binge watch that once the series is out, but truth be told I don't really like they way she brings her character in either to life. Claire is a woman abused by her husband, she's attacked by a homeless man and then "rescued" by Gabriel, a hitman who has skills that become and obsession for her. Her transition is the only one that doesn't sit right, yes I believe she'd try to take back her power wherever she could but her whole arc seems a little crazy.
As a crime drama it's probably missing something to take it over the line into an amazing effort but I enjoyed it for the most part. It didn't leave things unanswered and with so many different strands going on that was entirely possible.
Passing comment... I love Common, he needs to be in all the things.
What you should do
It's worth a watch when it hits streaming sites.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some quality retro clothing.
The three women are desperate but see an opportunity in the gap their imprisoned husbands have left. What the mob needs is a woman's touch.
Melissa McCarthy amuses me, her comedy really hits the spot, then she appeared in Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I was so happy to see she could do drama too. Tiffany Haddish was much the same, I've seen her in lots of comedy and find her to be entertaining (if a little over played) so when her name popped up on this I was interested to see how she handled "sensible". I was very pleased with the result, but we'll get there.
The look of everything in The Kitchen felt spot on. All the little touches really pulled the 70's feel together and gace each character their own vibe that lined up perfectly with their development through the film.
Music certainly helped on this front, though part of me was sad that they used "It's A Man's Man's Man's World." I know it fits perfectly with the tone and the subject but it felt so cliché for that to be the first thing we go and I actually sighed when it came on.
Our three wives make an interesting mix as a team, a collection that you couldn't see being friends under normal circumstances but they've been brought together out of necessity. I liked the way we got to see their lives unfold from the beginning. Their home life with their husbands and then their reactions as the men are charged. Kathy looking upset, Ruby with a look of disappointment that he should have been smarter, and Claire's smile as the court gives her a reprieve from his violence.
We see their progression to becoming a success in town happen quite quickly on screen and I thought that worked well. It left all the internal politics out until there was something bigger at stake to deal with.
The women all take on a path of their own, it diversifies their abilities but you know that something has to give. Every little piece that's added to their story felt like it was right to be there, nothing was unnecessary.
There's a certain amount of stereotype acting in The Kitchen but it works well when it comes to the gangs and their interactions together. Both Kathy (McCarthy) and Ruby (Haddish) have that in them too at one point or another but it's a little less evident in general.
As I said at the beginning, Melissa McCarthy's step into drama had been a hit with me and her portrayal of Kathy was no different. She went from an attentive wife and mother who minds her own business to a mob boss and entrepeneur, it's such a smooth transition that you'd wonder if she was doing something fishy on the side already.
Tiffany Haddish was amazing too, her dramatic skills really brought Ruby to life and it was a wonderfully believable performance.
Then there's Claire played by Elisabeth Moss. She's had great success in The Handmaid's Tale and I do binge watch that once the series is out, but truth be told I don't really like they way she brings her character in either to life. Claire is a woman abused by her husband, she's attacked by a homeless man and then "rescued" by Gabriel, a hitman who has skills that become and obsession for her. Her transition is the only one that doesn't sit right, yes I believe she'd try to take back her power wherever she could but her whole arc seems a little crazy.
As a crime drama it's probably missing something to take it over the line into an amazing effort but I enjoyed it for the most part. It didn't leave things unanswered and with so many different strands going on that was entirely possible.
Passing comment... I love Common, he needs to be in all the things.
What you should do
It's worth a watch when it hits streaming sites.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some quality retro clothing.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Three Heart Echo in Books
May 16, 2018
Three Heart Echo by Keary Taylor ended up on my reading list by yet another mislabeling on NetGalley, I must admit. As seen in the title image above, the book is a paranormal suspense. If you’ve read my blog for any length of time, you’ll no doubt guess that I grabbed it from the horror genre titles. Fortunately, after revisiting its cover I can at least say that its actual genre is the right one. While Three Heart Echo does have some elements of horror, it reads more like a paranormal-themed Lifetime movie.
Taking place soon after the death of Jack Caraway, Three Heart Echo tells the story of two vastly different people meeting and, you guessed it, falling in love. It’s not that simple though, and several of the more twisted things that one might expect from a horror novel surface throughout the plot. Iona Faye, a frail woman mourning the death of her fiance, seeks out Sully Whitmore, a man rumored to be able to speak to the dead. Together, the two unravel the darkness of Jack’s past while racing against time to unravel not one, but two curses.
The plot is fairly linear, with only one unexpected twist at the end. That twist defines much of the book though, and I have to admit that I actually felt anger flare up within me. I’ve gotta give Taylor kudos for that one. What I don’t like, besides the heavily romantic subplot, is the fact that, as readers see in many romance books, we’re dealing with two Mary Sue characters. Iona is described as a beautiful fawn whilst Sully is a giant Viking of a man. Catch my drift? Oh, and poor dead Jack? Apparently, he’s a stunner too.
While the plot is straightforward, Taylor also alternates between perspectives on chapters. Now, as a reader, you may think I mean she goes back and forth between past and present. It’s common enough when we read books, after all. Unfortunately, what I mean is that Taylor switches between perspectives of Sully and Iona. For the most part, the switches follow a pattern. There is some story overlap/repetition within those shifts, but it isn’t terrible. What perturbs me about these perspectives is that every now and then, there’s a break to the pattern where it may take some readers a moment to realize that the book has suddenly shifted to the past without warning.
Back to the romance side of things, there are far too many cliches. Poor, helpless main character gets an indescribable pain in their chest and they can’t fathom why it feels like their heart races when they look upon their love interest. As if that’s not bad enough, you know from the get-go that there’s going to be a love story involved. It’s not well enough to leave it a paranormal suspense, we might as well make it a romance too. Because y’know, two attractive people can’t simply be friends!
Speaking of chest pain, there’s another thing about this book that absolutely irked me. I could understand if one character had an odd need to count things. It happens and OCD is a real thing; but, what I’m referring to, is the need by both characters to take exactly five steps, to blink four times, to wait for three heartbeats before they do something so much as take a breath.
Finally, what the hell is a grand opus? The actual term is magnum opus. I’lll hope it was just a typo that was fixed in the final, published copy of the Three Heart Echo. Overall, the story itself is engaging to a degree, but it definitely wasn’t my style. I think it belongs more in the paranormal romance genre than it does horror.
I’d like to thank NetGalley and the author for providing me with a free copy for the purpose of review.
Taking place soon after the death of Jack Caraway, Three Heart Echo tells the story of two vastly different people meeting and, you guessed it, falling in love. It’s not that simple though, and several of the more twisted things that one might expect from a horror novel surface throughout the plot. Iona Faye, a frail woman mourning the death of her fiance, seeks out Sully Whitmore, a man rumored to be able to speak to the dead. Together, the two unravel the darkness of Jack’s past while racing against time to unravel not one, but two curses.
The plot is fairly linear, with only one unexpected twist at the end. That twist defines much of the book though, and I have to admit that I actually felt anger flare up within me. I’ve gotta give Taylor kudos for that one. What I don’t like, besides the heavily romantic subplot, is the fact that, as readers see in many romance books, we’re dealing with two Mary Sue characters. Iona is described as a beautiful fawn whilst Sully is a giant Viking of a man. Catch my drift? Oh, and poor dead Jack? Apparently, he’s a stunner too.
While the plot is straightforward, Taylor also alternates between perspectives on chapters. Now, as a reader, you may think I mean she goes back and forth between past and present. It’s common enough when we read books, after all. Unfortunately, what I mean is that Taylor switches between perspectives of Sully and Iona. For the most part, the switches follow a pattern. There is some story overlap/repetition within those shifts, but it isn’t terrible. What perturbs me about these perspectives is that every now and then, there’s a break to the pattern where it may take some readers a moment to realize that the book has suddenly shifted to the past without warning.
Back to the romance side of things, there are far too many cliches. Poor, helpless main character gets an indescribable pain in their chest and they can’t fathom why it feels like their heart races when they look upon their love interest. As if that’s not bad enough, you know from the get-go that there’s going to be a love story involved. It’s not well enough to leave it a paranormal suspense, we might as well make it a romance too. Because y’know, two attractive people can’t simply be friends!
Speaking of chest pain, there’s another thing about this book that absolutely irked me. I could understand if one character had an odd need to count things. It happens and OCD is a real thing; but, what I’m referring to, is the need by both characters to take exactly five steps, to blink four times, to wait for three heartbeats before they do something so much as take a breath.
Finally, what the hell is a grand opus? The actual term is magnum opus. I’lll hope it was just a typo that was fixed in the final, published copy of the Three Heart Echo. Overall, the story itself is engaging to a degree, but it definitely wasn’t my style. I think it belongs more in the paranormal romance genre than it does horror.
I’d like to thank NetGalley and the author for providing me with a free copy for the purpose of review.