Search
Search results
Betrayal (Infidelity, #1)
9.0
Rate It
Book
One week. No future. No past. No more. Alexandria Collins has one week to live carefree—no ghosts...
Sadness Is a White Bird
6.0
Rate It
Book
In this lyrical and searing debut novel written by a rising literary star and MacDowell Fellow, a...
Hazel (2934 KP) rated The Dark (Lacey Flint #5) in Books
May 29, 2022
Lacey Flint is back for another gripping story but don't worry if you haven't read any of the series before, it doesn't matter too much as Sharon Bolton does a great job of getting you up to speed with the characters without you getting bogged down in the back story.
Lacey is a complex character with secrets some of which are highlighted in the prologue. She is strong yet vulnerable, fearless and yet fearful as the opening chapter shows when a baby is snatched and set adrift on the River Thames and a pram is thrown off a bridge. What? Why? Who would do such a despicable thing?
The dark web is buzzing with the story and threatening of more to come; the incels (involuntary celibates) have had enough and want to make sure that every woman, no matter their age, knows it. The pressure to catch those behind the terrorist movement ramps up as the attacks become ever more commonplace and when it becomes clear that Lacey herself is a target, the tension becomes palpable but who are the people behind this and how can they be stopped when every man is a potential threat?
An absolutely gripping read with a scary concept that is all too frighteningly plausible that had me swiping my screen desperate to see what happened next but not wanting it to end ... and that ending ... I hope Sharon Bolton doesn't leave it as long for the next instalment is all I can say!
Thank you to Orion Publishing Group and NetGalley for enabling me to read The Dark and to share my thoughts.
Lacey is a complex character with secrets some of which are highlighted in the prologue. She is strong yet vulnerable, fearless and yet fearful as the opening chapter shows when a baby is snatched and set adrift on the River Thames and a pram is thrown off a bridge. What? Why? Who would do such a despicable thing?
The dark web is buzzing with the story and threatening of more to come; the incels (involuntary celibates) have had enough and want to make sure that every woman, no matter their age, knows it. The pressure to catch those behind the terrorist movement ramps up as the attacks become ever more commonplace and when it becomes clear that Lacey herself is a target, the tension becomes palpable but who are the people behind this and how can they be stopped when every man is a potential threat?
An absolutely gripping read with a scary concept that is all too frighteningly plausible that had me swiping my screen desperate to see what happened next but not wanting it to end ... and that ending ... I hope Sharon Bolton doesn't leave it as long for the next instalment is all I can say!
Thank you to Orion Publishing Group and NetGalley for enabling me to read The Dark and to share my thoughts.
Debbiereadsbook (1554 KP) rated Copper Creek (Sawyer's Ferry #3) in Books
May 7, 2019
such a fun read!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 3 in the Sawyer’s Ferry series. You don’t NEED to have read the other books, but I think you should. Not least because they are 4 and 5 stars from me, but they are really REALLY good!
Frankie is Holden’s best friend. He worked for Holden’s father. When the senior Prescott was arrested, his job went down the pan with the company. Now his cousin needs him out for the new baby, and he has no job. Holden calls him to Alaska to plan his wedding to Gage. In two freaking months! Meeting the mess that is at Cooper Creek brewery send him a little in to panic mode but working with Barrett has its benefits. The man is a magnet to Frankie. Barrett also is attracted to Frankie. But Jackson will leave in two months, and Barrett has to live in Sawyer’s Ferry.
This was a FUN read, but so so good!
Frankie is unique and makes no bones about it. He’s loud, and proud. Barrett, however, is not. Barrett is just trying to keep his business afloat after his assistant left. He can’t manage the business and the paperwork, and he feels like he is drowning in his beer. Frankie walks into his office and Barrett’s life will never be the same again!
What I particularly LOVED about this one was, while Barrett has immediate attraction to Frankie, he doesn’t act on it. And then the news that Barrett had been married, to a woman, comes out. And Barrett is not AT ALL questioning his attraction to Frankie. What he questions is whether he can KEEP Frankie. There is NO, not a single line, about him wondering if he’s gay, or bi, or has been in the closet forever. He just WANTS Frankie, and that Frankie is a man, is totally irrelevant. Loved that!
It is a much lighter read than books one and two, and I loved that it was. Neither Frankie nor Barrett have any deep dark secrets, or major trauma, but Barrett’s wife did leave him. There is no violence, unless you count what Frankie wanted to do to the woman who had been sharing Barrett’s bed in Juneau (is that spelt right?)
It’s sexy, oh yes ma’am it is! Frankie is a Master at the innuendo, and he makes Barrett squirm a lot! But Frankie knows what he wants, he knows what Barrett wants, even if he doesn’t say the words, and Frankie is nothing if not determined!
I loved Frankie’s reaction to Barrett’s declaration of love, I really did. Not gonna say what he does, but it made me laugh so much!
Some stunning scenery described here and why Holden and Gage chooses a bloody BARN over the lighthouse I will never know, (even if it was Logan’s refitted space!) but I loved what Barrett did there in the epilogue.
Are there any more planned? I have the short that comes between one and two to read, and the Christmas special that Holden plans for Gage, but are there any more MAIN books planned?? I hope so! Thoroughly enjoying these stories, and hope they continue!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book 3 in the Sawyer’s Ferry series. You don’t NEED to have read the other books, but I think you should. Not least because they are 4 and 5 stars from me, but they are really REALLY good!
Frankie is Holden’s best friend. He worked for Holden’s father. When the senior Prescott was arrested, his job went down the pan with the company. Now his cousin needs him out for the new baby, and he has no job. Holden calls him to Alaska to plan his wedding to Gage. In two freaking months! Meeting the mess that is at Cooper Creek brewery send him a little in to panic mode but working with Barrett has its benefits. The man is a magnet to Frankie. Barrett also is attracted to Frankie. But Jackson will leave in two months, and Barrett has to live in Sawyer’s Ferry.
This was a FUN read, but so so good!
Frankie is unique and makes no bones about it. He’s loud, and proud. Barrett, however, is not. Barrett is just trying to keep his business afloat after his assistant left. He can’t manage the business and the paperwork, and he feels like he is drowning in his beer. Frankie walks into his office and Barrett’s life will never be the same again!
What I particularly LOVED about this one was, while Barrett has immediate attraction to Frankie, he doesn’t act on it. And then the news that Barrett had been married, to a woman, comes out. And Barrett is not AT ALL questioning his attraction to Frankie. What he questions is whether he can KEEP Frankie. There is NO, not a single line, about him wondering if he’s gay, or bi, or has been in the closet forever. He just WANTS Frankie, and that Frankie is a man, is totally irrelevant. Loved that!
It is a much lighter read than books one and two, and I loved that it was. Neither Frankie nor Barrett have any deep dark secrets, or major trauma, but Barrett’s wife did leave him. There is no violence, unless you count what Frankie wanted to do to the woman who had been sharing Barrett’s bed in Juneau (is that spelt right?)
It’s sexy, oh yes ma’am it is! Frankie is a Master at the innuendo, and he makes Barrett squirm a lot! But Frankie knows what he wants, he knows what Barrett wants, even if he doesn’t say the words, and Frankie is nothing if not determined!
I loved Frankie’s reaction to Barrett’s declaration of love, I really did. Not gonna say what he does, but it made me laugh so much!
Some stunning scenery described here and why Holden and Gage chooses a bloody BARN over the lighthouse I will never know, (even if it was Logan’s refitted space!) but I loved what Barrett did there in the epilogue.
Are there any more planned? I have the short that comes between one and two to read, and the Christmas special that Holden plans for Gage, but are there any more MAIN books planned?? I hope so! Thoroughly enjoying these stories, and hope they continue!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Another case of threequel-itis
“At least we can agree the third one is always the worst” barks a young Jean Grey in X-Men: Apocalypse. And whilst the film stays well away from the poor efforts of Spider-Man 3 and The Last Stand, there’s more truth to that statement here than director Bryan Singer would want you to believe.
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
Never Look at the Empty Seats: A Memoir
Book
A tale of hard work, musical discovery, and faith, Charlie Daniels’s journey has been one of a...
Music biography
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated Bone Dressing (Book 1) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
I got this as a read to review, and it goes without saying (especially once you've read my review!) that what I am about to write is completely honest. I don't think I can explain my feelings about this book without letting spoilers slip, so please beware!
Unfortunately, unlike the <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/dead-letter-office/">first book</a> I received to review, I really didn't like this story, and I won't be reading the next books in the series. Part of the premise wasn't bad - a 17-year-old girl, Syd, goes back to a previous life and discovers she has an ability to shapeshift into 5 different animals - but there are many flaws that made it a challenge to read.
To start with, the premise I mentioned above was bogged down with so many other storylines trying to demand attention. There's a sexually harassing, paedophile teacher; issues with her dead parents (which never actually goes anywhere); boy issues (which I'll discuss later); and probably several other things I genuinely don't care about.
Then, there's Sydney. I don't think I've ever finished a book with a main character as unlikeable as her. Now, I understand she misses her parents (who died 7 years previously), but from what the story says, she has been with her foster parents ever since, and they treat her as good parents should, so I don't understand the amount of anger that spews from her for about 80% of the time she's appearing as Syd (as opposed to Rachel).
If you've read any of the reviews on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; before, you may have realised that I hate books that completely devolve from reality, especially when it comes to love. Syd mentions at the beginning of the book that she's had dates with 'hot' guys, but that she's put off as soon as they open their mouths. Then, one day, she's met by Beau (at the friggin' cemetery, by her parents' graves), and despite his stalkerish (and is it just me to think vampiric?) tendencies, she falls head over heels in love with him. Well, duh. She then has her life threatened by a panther, and decides to take that moment to declare how she feels about him. I'm not sure about anyone else, but that's not what I'd do.
When Syd goes back to her previous life, as Rachel, she again is madly in love with a man named Jesse. This section of the book is slightly better written in that Rachel has more vulnerability than Syd, and the events are more exciting and less jumbled. I was intrigued as to how Syd could help Rachel change the events (which was hinted at by Beau), and can't help feeling that if there had been more of this and a LOT less lead-up, I would have enjoyed the book more. The end of the book finished on a cliffhanger, with nothing of importance having been 'tied up', and expecting the reader to buy the next book in order to carry on.
Then there's Mr Askew. I won't waste my breath on this: he is a paedophile that sexually harasses Syd in front of the whole class. Worst student in the world or not, Sydney could get him done - no bargaining. Plus, why have her start at burning down the school only to not refer back to what was already mentioned when it happens at the end?!
In general, an annoyance throughout the book was the amount of metaphors and adjectives used for everything. If there's one word used to describe something, there can be three, appears to be this book's motto! Metaphors can be amazing, but they were taken too far here. (This blogger <a href="http://ashleychristiano.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/bone-dressing-by-michelle-brooks/">here</a>; agrees!) Picture this type of language every other page or so:
<blockquote><i>"I could feel the waves of an overwhelming heartbreak ravaging my body, taking hold as if preparing to replace every part of me with an ache that could never be soothed. Somewhere in the distance I heard agonizing sobbing, sobbing too painful for a mere girl to endure."</i> </blockquote>
Yeah. So, it's safe to say I won't be recommending this one.
Unfortunately, unlike the <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/dead-letter-office/">first book</a> I received to review, I really didn't like this story, and I won't be reading the next books in the series. Part of the premise wasn't bad - a 17-year-old girl, Syd, goes back to a previous life and discovers she has an ability to shapeshift into 5 different animals - but there are many flaws that made it a challenge to read.
To start with, the premise I mentioned above was bogged down with so many other storylines trying to demand attention. There's a sexually harassing, paedophile teacher; issues with her dead parents (which never actually goes anywhere); boy issues (which I'll discuss later); and probably several other things I genuinely don't care about.
Then, there's Sydney. I don't think I've ever finished a book with a main character as unlikeable as her. Now, I understand she misses her parents (who died 7 years previously), but from what the story says, she has been with her foster parents ever since, and they treat her as good parents should, so I don't understand the amount of anger that spews from her for about 80% of the time she's appearing as Syd (as opposed to Rachel).
If you've read any of the reviews on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; before, you may have realised that I hate books that completely devolve from reality, especially when it comes to love. Syd mentions at the beginning of the book that she's had dates with 'hot' guys, but that she's put off as soon as they open their mouths. Then, one day, she's met by Beau (at the friggin' cemetery, by her parents' graves), and despite his stalkerish (and is it just me to think vampiric?) tendencies, she falls head over heels in love with him. Well, duh. She then has her life threatened by a panther, and decides to take that moment to declare how she feels about him. I'm not sure about anyone else, but that's not what I'd do.
When Syd goes back to her previous life, as Rachel, she again is madly in love with a man named Jesse. This section of the book is slightly better written in that Rachel has more vulnerability than Syd, and the events are more exciting and less jumbled. I was intrigued as to how Syd could help Rachel change the events (which was hinted at by Beau), and can't help feeling that if there had been more of this and a LOT less lead-up, I would have enjoyed the book more. The end of the book finished on a cliffhanger, with nothing of importance having been 'tied up', and expecting the reader to buy the next book in order to carry on.
Then there's Mr Askew. I won't waste my breath on this: he is a paedophile that sexually harasses Syd in front of the whole class. Worst student in the world or not, Sydney could get him done - no bargaining. Plus, why have her start at burning down the school only to not refer back to what was already mentioned when it happens at the end?!
In general, an annoyance throughout the book was the amount of metaphors and adjectives used for everything. If there's one word used to describe something, there can be three, appears to be this book's motto! Metaphors can be amazing, but they were taken too far here. (This blogger <a href="http://ashleychristiano.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/bone-dressing-by-michelle-brooks/">here</a>; agrees!) Picture this type of language every other page or so:
<blockquote><i>"I could feel the waves of an overwhelming heartbreak ravaging my body, taking hold as if preparing to replace every part of me with an ache that could never be soothed. Somewhere in the distance I heard agonizing sobbing, sobbing too painful for a mere girl to endure."</i> </blockquote>
Yeah. So, it's safe to say I won't be recommending this one.
Debbiereadsbook (1554 KP) rated Bondage Rescue (Kiss of Leather #3) in Books
Apr 24, 2018
Reluctant Dom meets bratty sub!
Independent review for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Book 3 in the Kiss of Leather series, and I again STRONGLY recommend you read book one, Building Bonds, and two, Safe Limits first. There are things that happen in those books that you need to know about for this one to make sense.
Reluctant Dom meets bratty sub!
Marshall is Kyle's best friend and had disappeared. Calling on Master Josh for help was a last ditch to get the help he needs. Help that comes in the form of the private detective Kiss of Leather's law firm recommends to find the Dom who hurt Corey. Stone hasn't been in any sort of D/s lifestyle for 5 years, since the death of a sub that he was accused of. But meeting Marshall, seeing that young man all haggard looking and far too thin, releases something in Master Stone and he steps up to teach Marshall that true submission really is a beautiful thing.
If you follow you reviews (and I thank you if you do!) you'll know I'm all about the sexy time. I do love my books on the more explicit side, and I make no bones nor apologies for that. What I particularly LOVED about this one, was that Master Stone and Marshall do not get their sexy time til the last TEN MINUTES of their story! I LOVED being made to wait.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Master Stone knows just how to teach Marshall about self worth and he teaches him that punishment does not mean pain, although Marshall a pain-slut. Master Stone rather enjoys teaching the bratty subs, the brattier the better and Marshall just happens to be the most brattiest, stubborn, mouthy sub he has ever come across. And Master Stone, very quickly, makes its very clear that Marshall will have to wait, and wait PATIENTLY to have sex with him. And I LOVED IT!!!
The hunt for Corey's abuser continues, takes a shocking turn. I'm not telling you what though! Cos, you know, SPOILERS and all that! But I will tell you, when all this goes down, Master Stone has the exact same reaction as Master Derek does, and they go after THEIR boys.
Sometimes, in a series, especially when the main couples are very similar (here, big bad Dom and younger smaller guy) they get a little same old/same old. I'm NOT finding that here though. Yes all three Doms are older, and bigger, and yes, all three subs are younger and smaller, but their STORIES are so different! The on-going story arc helps a great deal, and the fact that the guys from the previous books continue to play a HUGE part in future books, too, but it's the SUBS who have the greatest differences and I LOVE that they are all friends.
Up next, are Master Josh and David. While already in a committed relationship, I can't wait to get their story. Because it's the Grand Opening of Kiss of Leather and I have a feeling it is not going to be as plain sailing as it has been and I look forward to being introduced to new characters.
Some reference to drug and alcohol abuse, but not described in any detail.
Loving these!
5 full stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Book 3 in the Kiss of Leather series, and I again STRONGLY recommend you read book one, Building Bonds, and two, Safe Limits first. There are things that happen in those books that you need to know about for this one to make sense.
Reluctant Dom meets bratty sub!
Marshall is Kyle's best friend and had disappeared. Calling on Master Josh for help was a last ditch to get the help he needs. Help that comes in the form of the private detective Kiss of Leather's law firm recommends to find the Dom who hurt Corey. Stone hasn't been in any sort of D/s lifestyle for 5 years, since the death of a sub that he was accused of. But meeting Marshall, seeing that young man all haggard looking and far too thin, releases something in Master Stone and he steps up to teach Marshall that true submission really is a beautiful thing.
If you follow you reviews (and I thank you if you do!) you'll know I'm all about the sexy time. I do love my books on the more explicit side, and I make no bones nor apologies for that. What I particularly LOVED about this one, was that Master Stone and Marshall do not get their sexy time til the last TEN MINUTES of their story! I LOVED being made to wait.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Master Stone knows just how to teach Marshall about self worth and he teaches him that punishment does not mean pain, although Marshall a pain-slut. Master Stone rather enjoys teaching the bratty subs, the brattier the better and Marshall just happens to be the most brattiest, stubborn, mouthy sub he has ever come across. And Master Stone, very quickly, makes its very clear that Marshall will have to wait, and wait PATIENTLY to have sex with him. And I LOVED IT!!!
The hunt for Corey's abuser continues, takes a shocking turn. I'm not telling you what though! Cos, you know, SPOILERS and all that! But I will tell you, when all this goes down, Master Stone has the exact same reaction as Master Derek does, and they go after THEIR boys.
Sometimes, in a series, especially when the main couples are very similar (here, big bad Dom and younger smaller guy) they get a little same old/same old. I'm NOT finding that here though. Yes all three Doms are older, and bigger, and yes, all three subs are younger and smaller, but their STORIES are so different! The on-going story arc helps a great deal, and the fact that the guys from the previous books continue to play a HUGE part in future books, too, but it's the SUBS who have the greatest differences and I LOVE that they are all friends.
Up next, are Master Josh and David. While already in a committed relationship, I can't wait to get their story. Because it's the Grand Opening of Kiss of Leather and I have a feeling it is not going to be as plain sailing as it has been and I look forward to being introduced to new characters.
Some reference to drug and alcohol abuse, but not described in any detail.
Loving these!
5 full stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Perfect Death in Books
Sep 28, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have debated with myself over a rating for this, the third in the "DI Luc Callanach" series of Edinburgh police procedurals. While the overall story is definitely a 4 star, verging on 5, certain aspects of the dialogue in this one were a little jarring at times, and the plot hinged on a couple of very out of character decisions on the part of the murderer.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.