Search
Search results
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Dracula was written by author Bram Stoker during the late 1890's and is set around the character of Dracula and his attempt to move from Transylvania to England so he can spread the curse of the undead (I.e. the creation of more vampires). English solicitor Jonathan Harker who'd originally gone to Transylvania to be legal aide for Dracula stops him with the help of Van Helsing and others which ends the life of one of them – Quincey-, the book ends with a note from Jonathan Harker that several people lived happily married and Jonathan has a son nicknamed for Quincey.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
May 12, 2019
To Infinity....and Beyond!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Perhaps it's the eternal child in me, the three year old boy who developed a passion for superheroes after first seeing the 1966 Batman movie in the cinema (re-run of course, this was the 70's!), but this is without doubt the best film I have ever seen! Running at around 2 hours and 20 minutes in length (that's prior to the end credits mind you!) this movie brings together plot strands and characters from the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 10 year tapestry in what I will only describe as an epic thrill-ride.
I'm sure if you're reading this you know the plot. Thanos - the granite jawed world killer from the planet Titan, is rounding up the 6 all powerful infinity stones with which he plans to restore the balance of the universe through essentially wiping out 50% of everything. All that stands in his way are The Avengers, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Spiderman, Black Panther, and probably a few I've forgotten to mention! And that's pretty much the story.
We pick things up directly from the mid credits scene of Thor: Ragnarok where the refugee Asgardians, Bruce Banner, and Loki encountered a spaceship of epic proportions. We all knew it at the time... Thanos! Within the first five minutes or so we already have our first casualties at the hands of the purple behemoth which sets the tone for what follows. In possession of two of the stones Thanos dispatches his 'children' - the Black Order, to Earth to retrieve the Mind and Time stones whilst he tracks down the remaining ones. At quite a quick pace our heroes are introduced into the chaos and by employing this structure the writers ably break down the ensemble into smaller manageable groups. Stark, Peter Parker, and Doctor Strange are hurled into the vastness of Space where they encounter Peter Quill and some of his merry misfits, Thor and some of the other Guardians go off in search off forging a weapon to defeat Thanos, and Rogers, Romanoff, Wilson, Rhodes and Maximoff take Vision to Wakanda in order to try and separate the Mind Stone from him with the aid of T'Challa, Shuri and Okaye. Gamora finds herself the prisoner of her adoptive father - a storyline that gives both Brolin and Saldana a chance to really show their worth. Those are effectively the four story strands at play and each is a joy in its own right.
Each character stays true to form with Hemsworth taking the character along he rediscovered in 'Ragnarok' - albeit with some added darkness from the movie's opening moments. Chris Pratt is sheer joy as Quill/Starlord and his interplay with Stark and Hemsworth is a joy to behold. Tom Holland gets one of the best lines when responding to a question from Quill regarding a certain Kevin Bacon movie! Top marks also go to the man who launched this universe a decade ago as Iron Man - yes, Robert Downey Jr knocks it out of the park as a Tony Stark far removed from that we encountered back in the first movie of the MCU. His performance at the climax is simply first rate.
With such a large cast there are characters who don't get as much to do as others although everyone get's a 'moment or two' amongst proceedings. Those that particularly stand out, however, are Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man (reiterating my earlier comments), Chris Hemsworth as Thor (likewise), Zoe Saldana as Gamora (ditto), Chris Pratt as Starlord/Peter Quill (and again), Paul Bettany as Vision and Elisabeth Olsen as Wanda/Scarlet Witch. Surprisingly, Chris Evans doesn't seem to get much to do other than play an active role in a number of excellent battle sequences, although his introduction into the movie along with Black Widow and Falcon as they turn up in Scotland to save the day for Vision and Wanda Maximoff from the Black Order was a personal fist thumping the air moment!
There's simply so much to talk about and I'll stop myself there. If, like myself, you just can't avoid spoilers then chances are you know what happens in this movie by now...including that ending!!
Thanos is the perfect villain, fantastically realised, and given real motivation for his actions - the guy thinks he's showing mercy to the universe! I wouldn't agree that this is his movie as the film-makers have repeatedly stated however he is the central cog that keeps things turning.~Josh Brolin does an exceptional job in bringing Thanos to life. Given the feedback and reaction to Steppenwolf in the DCEU there could have been obvious concerns around another CGI villain. Fear not, the technology is exceptional and Brolin's features are evident 100% making Thanos a living creation.
Alan Silvestri's score is the perfect fit and really compliments the action unfolding on the screen. During the aforementioned fist in the air moment as Steve Rogers, Black Widow, and Falcon make their first appearance to take on the Black Order, Silvestri's 'Avengers' theme kicks in creating pure movie magic.
Simply put, this movie is pure perfection.
I'm sure if you're reading this you know the plot. Thanos - the granite jawed world killer from the planet Titan, is rounding up the 6 all powerful infinity stones with which he plans to restore the balance of the universe through essentially wiping out 50% of everything. All that stands in his way are The Avengers, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Spiderman, Black Panther, and probably a few I've forgotten to mention! And that's pretty much the story.
We pick things up directly from the mid credits scene of Thor: Ragnarok where the refugee Asgardians, Bruce Banner, and Loki encountered a spaceship of epic proportions. We all knew it at the time... Thanos! Within the first five minutes or so we already have our first casualties at the hands of the purple behemoth which sets the tone for what follows. In possession of two of the stones Thanos dispatches his 'children' - the Black Order, to Earth to retrieve the Mind and Time stones whilst he tracks down the remaining ones. At quite a quick pace our heroes are introduced into the chaos and by employing this structure the writers ably break down the ensemble into smaller manageable groups. Stark, Peter Parker, and Doctor Strange are hurled into the vastness of Space where they encounter Peter Quill and some of his merry misfits, Thor and some of the other Guardians go off in search off forging a weapon to defeat Thanos, and Rogers, Romanoff, Wilson, Rhodes and Maximoff take Vision to Wakanda in order to try and separate the Mind Stone from him with the aid of T'Challa, Shuri and Okaye. Gamora finds herself the prisoner of her adoptive father - a storyline that gives both Brolin and Saldana a chance to really show their worth. Those are effectively the four story strands at play and each is a joy in its own right.
Each character stays true to form with Hemsworth taking the character along he rediscovered in 'Ragnarok' - albeit with some added darkness from the movie's opening moments. Chris Pratt is sheer joy as Quill/Starlord and his interplay with Stark and Hemsworth is a joy to behold. Tom Holland gets one of the best lines when responding to a question from Quill regarding a certain Kevin Bacon movie! Top marks also go to the man who launched this universe a decade ago as Iron Man - yes, Robert Downey Jr knocks it out of the park as a Tony Stark far removed from that we encountered back in the first movie of the MCU. His performance at the climax is simply first rate.
With such a large cast there are characters who don't get as much to do as others although everyone get's a 'moment or two' amongst proceedings. Those that particularly stand out, however, are Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man (reiterating my earlier comments), Chris Hemsworth as Thor (likewise), Zoe Saldana as Gamora (ditto), Chris Pratt as Starlord/Peter Quill (and again), Paul Bettany as Vision and Elisabeth Olsen as Wanda/Scarlet Witch. Surprisingly, Chris Evans doesn't seem to get much to do other than play an active role in a number of excellent battle sequences, although his introduction into the movie along with Black Widow and Falcon as they turn up in Scotland to save the day for Vision and Wanda Maximoff from the Black Order was a personal fist thumping the air moment!
There's simply so much to talk about and I'll stop myself there. If, like myself, you just can't avoid spoilers then chances are you know what happens in this movie by now...including that ending!!
Thanos is the perfect villain, fantastically realised, and given real motivation for his actions - the guy thinks he's showing mercy to the universe! I wouldn't agree that this is his movie as the film-makers have repeatedly stated however he is the central cog that keeps things turning.~Josh Brolin does an exceptional job in bringing Thanos to life. Given the feedback and reaction to Steppenwolf in the DCEU there could have been obvious concerns around another CGI villain. Fear not, the technology is exceptional and Brolin's features are evident 100% making Thanos a living creation.
Alan Silvestri's score is the perfect fit and really compliments the action unfolding on the screen. During the aforementioned fist in the air moment as Steve Rogers, Black Widow, and Falcon make their first appearance to take on the Black Order, Silvestri's 'Avengers' theme kicks in creating pure movie magic.
Simply put, this movie is pure perfection.
Mayhawke (97 KP) rated I am No One in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Intriguing but ultimately disappointing
Written in the first person I Am No One is the account of recent events in the life of the fictional NY academic, Jeremy O'Keefe. O'Keefe, ironically an expert in surveillance, finds himself the subject of apparent scrutiny by unknown observers, a discovery that propels him into paranoia and pushes him to the boundaries of sanity. As the story is unpacked, page by page, it becomes clear that O'Keefe's paranoia is not unfounded, and that his initial confusion as to why anyone would want to bother observing the behaviour of a mundane and only moderately successful Professor actually belies a deeper understanding of the cause and his actions that precipitated it.
O'Keefe is a difficult character to really sympathise with. Whilst his ideology is admirably egalitarian he falls into that bracket of slightly stuffy, middle-class liberals who take themselves too seriously and fail to practise what they preach. In fairness to O'Keefe he largely has the grace and self-awareness to question the rationality of his fears and accidental moments of prejudice (though he is of the very typical male Liberal variety that doesn't seem to recognise the contradiction of professing himself feminist whilst watching porn): slightly pompous, slightly too much self-regard slightly too much sense of victimhood, he is not unlikeable just a bit of a non-entity. Whilst this is clearly intentional it makes his narrative stodgy. Not unreadable, but at the same time easy to put down for a week whilst a more engaging book is read. This is either a spectacularly adept piece of characterisation or an unfortunate reflection of the author, Patrick Flanery. I do hope it is the writing because if not then all the peculiar, inaccurate and unlikely observations made by O'Keefe onbehalf of his character regarding differences between the British and Americans are likely also Flanery's:. For example the breath-taking assertion that socio-economic failure is treated more harshly in the UK than in the US, when any basic knowledge of sociology in the two countries shows that the criteria for failure is a) much broader in the US and b) responded to far more harshly, e.g.: "if you don't earn enough from your three jobs to afford medical insurance to pay for your cancer treatment, you clearly haven't worked hard enough. The fault is yours , you are a failure and the punishment is premature death.". It is also difficult to accept that Flanery is regularly treated with distrust and dislike by bank cashiers for his Irish name. Quite aside from anything else most bank cashiers in this country now aren't old enough to remember the Irish troubles, and the bigots-for-bigotry's-sake have long since transferred their angst from the Irish to the Poles and the Muslims.
Flanery is also an academic, something that is abundantly obvious from the highly structured writing method he employs in this book. The reader is left with the impression that where other novelists write books to be read as stories Flanery has written a text with an eye to future deconstruction by English Lit students. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but occasionally one wishes he could have been a little less concerned with construction in the minutiae and more concerned with crafting a story with a complete beginning, middle and end. And therein lies one of the greatest failings of this book: it has no real conclusion. Questions are raised that go unanswered. In particular, there are issues with characters, whose true identity may never be elaborated upon or, in the case of his girlfriend who makes a sudden, poorly explained behavioural volte-face that is entirely out of character but provides Flanery with a device to enable his protagonist take the critical closing step to the tale.
It seems that Flanery has written this book as a parable on the dangers of unfettered digital surveillance: how easy it is for those who wish to to access all our personal data and how very quickly and efficiently lives can be subverted. Whilst this may be a revelation to a few it has to be said that there is nothing revealed in this book about the scope and methods of data collection that anyone who has even a small amount of technical savvy won't already know, which rather undermines it as an expose. The book also attempts to portray how easy it is to suddenly and unintentionally find oneself on the wrong side of the law. Unfortunately in this story the actions which purport to have landed O'Keefe in possible criminality are so ridiculous and far-fetched that only the most paranoid would ever see an offence in them. Contrary to highlighting the ease with which the well intentioned can unwittingly find themselves in need of lawyers it suggests that all the peripheral characters are actually far more paranoid and delusional than O'Keefe will ever be.
All that aside this was an intriguing and mildly engaging story. Largely well-written but let down by a an unsatisfactory conclusion and a failure to induce the kind of fear that was intended.
O'Keefe is a difficult character to really sympathise with. Whilst his ideology is admirably egalitarian he falls into that bracket of slightly stuffy, middle-class liberals who take themselves too seriously and fail to practise what they preach. In fairness to O'Keefe he largely has the grace and self-awareness to question the rationality of his fears and accidental moments of prejudice (though he is of the very typical male Liberal variety that doesn't seem to recognise the contradiction of professing himself feminist whilst watching porn): slightly pompous, slightly too much self-regard slightly too much sense of victimhood, he is not unlikeable just a bit of a non-entity. Whilst this is clearly intentional it makes his narrative stodgy. Not unreadable, but at the same time easy to put down for a week whilst a more engaging book is read. This is either a spectacularly adept piece of characterisation or an unfortunate reflection of the author, Patrick Flanery. I do hope it is the writing because if not then all the peculiar, inaccurate and unlikely observations made by O'Keefe onbehalf of his character regarding differences between the British and Americans are likely also Flanery's:. For example the breath-taking assertion that socio-economic failure is treated more harshly in the UK than in the US, when any basic knowledge of sociology in the two countries shows that the criteria for failure is a) much broader in the US and b) responded to far more harshly, e.g.: "if you don't earn enough from your three jobs to afford medical insurance to pay for your cancer treatment, you clearly haven't worked hard enough. The fault is yours , you are a failure and the punishment is premature death.". It is also difficult to accept that Flanery is regularly treated with distrust and dislike by bank cashiers for his Irish name. Quite aside from anything else most bank cashiers in this country now aren't old enough to remember the Irish troubles, and the bigots-for-bigotry's-sake have long since transferred their angst from the Irish to the Poles and the Muslims.
Flanery is also an academic, something that is abundantly obvious from the highly structured writing method he employs in this book. The reader is left with the impression that where other novelists write books to be read as stories Flanery has written a text with an eye to future deconstruction by English Lit students. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but occasionally one wishes he could have been a little less concerned with construction in the minutiae and more concerned with crafting a story with a complete beginning, middle and end. And therein lies one of the greatest failings of this book: it has no real conclusion. Questions are raised that go unanswered. In particular, there are issues with characters, whose true identity may never be elaborated upon or, in the case of his girlfriend who makes a sudden, poorly explained behavioural volte-face that is entirely out of character but provides Flanery with a device to enable his protagonist take the critical closing step to the tale.
It seems that Flanery has written this book as a parable on the dangers of unfettered digital surveillance: how easy it is for those who wish to to access all our personal data and how very quickly and efficiently lives can be subverted. Whilst this may be a revelation to a few it has to be said that there is nothing revealed in this book about the scope and methods of data collection that anyone who has even a small amount of technical savvy won't already know, which rather undermines it as an expose. The book also attempts to portray how easy it is to suddenly and unintentionally find oneself on the wrong side of the law. Unfortunately in this story the actions which purport to have landed O'Keefe in possible criminality are so ridiculous and far-fetched that only the most paranoid would ever see an offence in them. Contrary to highlighting the ease with which the well intentioned can unwittingly find themselves in need of lawyers it suggests that all the peripheral characters are actually far more paranoid and delusional than O'Keefe will ever be.
All that aside this was an intriguing and mildly engaging story. Largely well-written but let down by a an unsatisfactory conclusion and a failure to induce the kind of fear that was intended.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Akira (1988) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: In the aftermath of World War III in 1988 Tokyo has had to build again and 31 years later in the 2019 New-Tokyo is on the edge of the next war. We follow Kaneda and school student the leader of a biker gang including Tetsuo and Kei. When Tetsuo ends up involved in an accident after getting distracted by Takashi a young boy with certain abilities he gets taken by the government.
When Colonel Shikishima is running an operation to find Akira the cause of the previous World War the three children Takashi, Kiyoko and Masaru must prevent this happening while Tetsuo ends up becoming power and a threat to the whole city. Kaneda teams up with the resistance against the government through Kei and we follow as every side comes to a battle that will need to stop a future war.
Akira reaches levels most action films could never imagine with the number of character in the overall battle each having their own motives behind being involved. The look at what a future could have been all looks great and coming from a graphic novel everything works for what the film is trying to achieve. The violence is unlike anything you would have seen in an animated film which helps shows the world we will be entering.
Character Review
Kaneda: Kaneda is the leader of the school aged biker gang who drives the iconic red bike, when one of his gang is kidnapped by the government he joins the resistance against the government movement. Once we see what happens with his friend Tetsuo he must fight his old friend to stop the next World War happen. Kaneda is a great leading character that even after nearly 30 years is still one of the most iconic in all of animated film history.kaneda
Tetsuo: Tetsuo is a member of Kaneda’s biker gang but after he has an accident the government takes his away to use in their latest experiments. What happens to Tetsuo leads him to become a threat to the city as he searches for Akira a threat not just to Neo-Tokyo but the world. Tetsuo starts of as just a member of the gang wanting to become more and once he has the powers he learns he isn’t ready to have the leadership when he ends up turning on the people he once considered friends, a great villainous character without being a true villain.tetsuo
Kei: Kei is a member of the resistance that Kaneda rescues from the police before joining forces Kaneda to stop the government and rescue Tetsuo from bring Akira back from the dead. Kei is the potential romantic angle for Kaneda who is also as tough as they come, she also has a connection to the children with the abilities.kei
Support Characters: Akira has a large amount of supporting characters which include Kaneda’s gang who all stick with him when he needs to fight. We also have the resistance who help Kei and Kaneda achieve the battle. We have the three kids who have to abilities in their own right that together making the deadly but also fighting for the right thing. We also have one last group and that is the government who want to bring the Akira power back as a weapon.
Director Review: Katsuhiro Otomo – Katsuhiro brings us his own graphic novel to the bring screen which offers one of the most entertain and well developed characters in recent film.
Action: Akira has action from start to finish, we have a motorbike chase to open the film, constant chases to either reach someone or escape from them and the final fight oh my god what a brilliant conclusion.
Animation: Akira has simply brilliant looking animation that help bring the action to life and once more I refer to the final scene which is just breathtaking visual moment.
Sci-Fi: Akira brings us into a future world where the world has been through another World War and had to rebuild in a new future with the Neo-Tokyo.
Settings: Akira creates a futuristic looking world that helps us identify just how far into the future we have gone with the story.
Suggestion: Akira is one for all the animated fans to see because it really is a visual treat with a stunning story that will stick with you. (Animated Fans Watch)
Best Part: The final battle which will leave your jaw dropped with how amazing it looks.
Worst Part: I would say this is going to be too violent for certain animated fans.
Action Scene Of The Film: The final battle is easily the best scene in the whole film and could easily be the best one in action animated films.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 2 Hours 4 Minutes
Tagline: Signal Traced to Tokyo!
Trivia: The movie takes place in 2019 and depicts Neo-Tokyo creating a new Olympic stadium. Coincidentally, Tokyo is scheduled to host the 2020 Summer Olympics.
Overall: Akira really is one of the best animated film that ever got made that will still be talked about for years to come.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/09/30/akira-1988/
When Colonel Shikishima is running an operation to find Akira the cause of the previous World War the three children Takashi, Kiyoko and Masaru must prevent this happening while Tetsuo ends up becoming power and a threat to the whole city. Kaneda teams up with the resistance against the government through Kei and we follow as every side comes to a battle that will need to stop a future war.
Akira reaches levels most action films could never imagine with the number of character in the overall battle each having their own motives behind being involved. The look at what a future could have been all looks great and coming from a graphic novel everything works for what the film is trying to achieve. The violence is unlike anything you would have seen in an animated film which helps shows the world we will be entering.
Character Review
Kaneda: Kaneda is the leader of the school aged biker gang who drives the iconic red bike, when one of his gang is kidnapped by the government he joins the resistance against the government movement. Once we see what happens with his friend Tetsuo he must fight his old friend to stop the next World War happen. Kaneda is a great leading character that even after nearly 30 years is still one of the most iconic in all of animated film history.kaneda
Tetsuo: Tetsuo is a member of Kaneda’s biker gang but after he has an accident the government takes his away to use in their latest experiments. What happens to Tetsuo leads him to become a threat to the city as he searches for Akira a threat not just to Neo-Tokyo but the world. Tetsuo starts of as just a member of the gang wanting to become more and once he has the powers he learns he isn’t ready to have the leadership when he ends up turning on the people he once considered friends, a great villainous character without being a true villain.tetsuo
Kei: Kei is a member of the resistance that Kaneda rescues from the police before joining forces Kaneda to stop the government and rescue Tetsuo from bring Akira back from the dead. Kei is the potential romantic angle for Kaneda who is also as tough as they come, she also has a connection to the children with the abilities.kei
Support Characters: Akira has a large amount of supporting characters which include Kaneda’s gang who all stick with him when he needs to fight. We also have the resistance who help Kei and Kaneda achieve the battle. We have the three kids who have to abilities in their own right that together making the deadly but also fighting for the right thing. We also have one last group and that is the government who want to bring the Akira power back as a weapon.
Director Review: Katsuhiro Otomo – Katsuhiro brings us his own graphic novel to the bring screen which offers one of the most entertain and well developed characters in recent film.
Action: Akira has action from start to finish, we have a motorbike chase to open the film, constant chases to either reach someone or escape from them and the final fight oh my god what a brilliant conclusion.
Animation: Akira has simply brilliant looking animation that help bring the action to life and once more I refer to the final scene which is just breathtaking visual moment.
Sci-Fi: Akira brings us into a future world where the world has been through another World War and had to rebuild in a new future with the Neo-Tokyo.
Settings: Akira creates a futuristic looking world that helps us identify just how far into the future we have gone with the story.
Suggestion: Akira is one for all the animated fans to see because it really is a visual treat with a stunning story that will stick with you. (Animated Fans Watch)
Best Part: The final battle which will leave your jaw dropped with how amazing it looks.
Worst Part: I would say this is going to be too violent for certain animated fans.
Action Scene Of The Film: The final battle is easily the best scene in the whole film and could easily be the best one in action animated films.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 2 Hours 4 Minutes
Tagline: Signal Traced to Tokyo!
Trivia: The movie takes place in 2019 and depicts Neo-Tokyo creating a new Olympic stadium. Coincidentally, Tokyo is scheduled to host the 2020 Summer Olympics.
Overall: Akira really is one of the best animated film that ever got made that will still be talked about for years to come.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/09/30/akira-1988/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Prodigy (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Here we are, a turning point of sorts. I had said to myself that I would try to be less of a scaredy cat and see all the films at the cinema. I'm not at a point where I can happily say "it's a no from me". Horror and I mix fine if I can watch them at home in the daylight and I can shout at the characters when they do dumb things like go into basements and don't turn on lights.
I wasn't even halfway through the trailers when I realised that sitting in the pitch black where people can appear out of nowhere was not for me. I made a decision to not see Us at the cinema there and then, and the same would be true for Pet Semetary if it wasn't for the fact they announced an Unlimited Screening for it.
Anyway...
I didn't know exactly what this film when I went in, I'd read the smallest of synopsis and that was basically it. It wasn't until I was in the cinema that I realised what I'd got myself into but by that point I was there and that was the end of it, I was staying.
The basic outline of the story is one that I'm certain I've seen in a similar form on other things, but I can't for the life of me remember where. Potentially I'm thinking of things like Criminal Minds.
You know fairly early on where this film is going to take you, I think I jumped in the first minute, along with a couple in front of me.
The way they link the simultaneous events at the beginning if very well done, the timing and the visuals line up perfectly. We then get fast-tracked through his early years and we see how special he is, and how he's just a smidge creepy.
The Prodigy has lots of classic tells from horror sprinkled through it, if I'd been at home I'd have been screaming at the screen. There are little tells everywhere but none of it spoils what's to come.
Overall the brought everything together extremely well to create something that was gripping and just a little scary to everyone around me... apart from the guy behind me who on more than one occasion laughed and gave me the urge to move seats.
The further in we get the more messed up things become for the characters, they're basically all screwed but none of them see it until it's too late. Miles becomes so creepy at one point that I'm assuming they decided that it was too much for the young actor to do. There's a cutaway to his eyes as he's talking but it sounds rather like a voice-over that's unlike the rest of the audio in the film.
At some point I gave up hope for... everything, and just wished someone would do the right thing and do away with him. Had I been watching this at home and shouting at the screen, someone might have listened and saved everyone a lot of heartbreak.
The Prodigy knows how to draw you in. We see Miles hypnotised with a metronome and the sequence makes you want to lean towards the screen for what you know is going to be something important. The constantly moving camera in time with the ticking worked so well.
If you look up Jackson Robert Scott on IMDb you get a delightfully cute picture, but even if I were his own mother I'd be suspicious about having him in the house after seeing this film. He seems to have found a little creepy niche with this and It, and he's pretty good at it. There's something about his mannerisms that don't feel quite right, but had he nailed that then I don't think I'd have ever slept again.
Taylor Shilling works well as Miles' mother, her reactions all help you get that sense of danger she feels and as her emotions ramp up so do ours. I'm not sure that the love of my child would have kept me on board for that long though.
There were mixed offerings from the rest of the cast, not that I'm sure that matters a great deal when the key part of the film is almost entirely focused on Miles and the visuals around that. I particularly like that they consistently show you the two sides of Miles. We see it on the movie posters as well as in the film with effective use of light and dark.
The Prodigy is almost right up my alley, it's basically a Criminal Minds storyline without the FBI, and a little supernatural something thrown in. It probably would have got higher marks from me had it not take every opportunity to make the audience jump. This film also teaches us a very important lesson, when a friendly dog hates a child you should trust its instincts.
What you should do
This is a very good thriller and if you don't mind jumping a bit every now and then it's well worth a watch. I think it's probably worth watching twice, knowing what I know now I'd like to see it again to put the pieces back together.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I will have the puppy from the beginning of the film, everything else can stay very very far away.
I wasn't even halfway through the trailers when I realised that sitting in the pitch black where people can appear out of nowhere was not for me. I made a decision to not see Us at the cinema there and then, and the same would be true for Pet Semetary if it wasn't for the fact they announced an Unlimited Screening for it.
Anyway...
I didn't know exactly what this film when I went in, I'd read the smallest of synopsis and that was basically it. It wasn't until I was in the cinema that I realised what I'd got myself into but by that point I was there and that was the end of it, I was staying.
The basic outline of the story is one that I'm certain I've seen in a similar form on other things, but I can't for the life of me remember where. Potentially I'm thinking of things like Criminal Minds.
You know fairly early on where this film is going to take you, I think I jumped in the first minute, along with a couple in front of me.
The way they link the simultaneous events at the beginning if very well done, the timing and the visuals line up perfectly. We then get fast-tracked through his early years and we see how special he is, and how he's just a smidge creepy.
The Prodigy has lots of classic tells from horror sprinkled through it, if I'd been at home I'd have been screaming at the screen. There are little tells everywhere but none of it spoils what's to come.
Overall the brought everything together extremely well to create something that was gripping and just a little scary to everyone around me... apart from the guy behind me who on more than one occasion laughed and gave me the urge to move seats.
The further in we get the more messed up things become for the characters, they're basically all screwed but none of them see it until it's too late. Miles becomes so creepy at one point that I'm assuming they decided that it was too much for the young actor to do. There's a cutaway to his eyes as he's talking but it sounds rather like a voice-over that's unlike the rest of the audio in the film.
At some point I gave up hope for... everything, and just wished someone would do the right thing and do away with him. Had I been watching this at home and shouting at the screen, someone might have listened and saved everyone a lot of heartbreak.
The Prodigy knows how to draw you in. We see Miles hypnotised with a metronome and the sequence makes you want to lean towards the screen for what you know is going to be something important. The constantly moving camera in time with the ticking worked so well.
If you look up Jackson Robert Scott on IMDb you get a delightfully cute picture, but even if I were his own mother I'd be suspicious about having him in the house after seeing this film. He seems to have found a little creepy niche with this and It, and he's pretty good at it. There's something about his mannerisms that don't feel quite right, but had he nailed that then I don't think I'd have ever slept again.
Taylor Shilling works well as Miles' mother, her reactions all help you get that sense of danger she feels and as her emotions ramp up so do ours. I'm not sure that the love of my child would have kept me on board for that long though.
There were mixed offerings from the rest of the cast, not that I'm sure that matters a great deal when the key part of the film is almost entirely focused on Miles and the visuals around that. I particularly like that they consistently show you the two sides of Miles. We see it on the movie posters as well as in the film with effective use of light and dark.
The Prodigy is almost right up my alley, it's basically a Criminal Minds storyline without the FBI, and a little supernatural something thrown in. It probably would have got higher marks from me had it not take every opportunity to make the audience jump. This film also teaches us a very important lesson, when a friendly dog hates a child you should trust its instincts.
What you should do
This is a very good thriller and if you don't mind jumping a bit every now and then it's well worth a watch. I think it's probably worth watching twice, knowing what I know now I'd like to see it again to put the pieces back together.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I will have the puppy from the beginning of the film, everything else can stay very very far away.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 23, 2019
Like pretty much everyone else, when I first heard that the Robin Williams 1985 classic Jumanji was getting some kind of reboot/remake starring Dwayne Johnson, I was hugely sceptical. I probably even rolled my eyes and raised an eyebrow or something in disappointed disbelief! But then, also like pretty much everyone else judging by the fact it went on to make almost a billion dollars, I was more than pleasantly surprised when Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle turned out to be a big hit - an enjoyable, fresh take on the Jumanji idea, while still remaining true to the original. But, big box office numbers usually mean that a sequel won't be too far off and, sure enough, Jumanji: The Next Level was announced, with the original cast all returning. Hopefully they weren't going to end up stretching the formula too thin and had managed to come up with another new and exciting adventure to entice us back into the world of Jumanji.
Our four teens from Welcome to the Jungle are all still great friends following their ordeal/adventure together, although Spencer has become more distant from the group over the last year, seeming rather unhappy and depressed with life. As the rest of the group excitedly exchange messages on Whatsapp in preparation to return home for a Christmas reunion, Spencer is getting yelled at by his boss before struggling with a broken suitcase in the pouring rain as he heads to catch the bus home. When he does make it home, his Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) is staying with them while he recovers from a hip operation, and Spencer now has the pleasure of sharing his bedroom with him. Complaining about old age, Eddie is the kind of grumpy character that Danny DeVito plays so perfectly and we are also introduced soon after to an old friend of his, Milo (Danny Glover). Eddie and Milo are former partners in the restaurant business, but haven't been on the best of terms over the last 15 years since they sold the restaurant and parted on not the best of terms.
When Spencer suddenly goes missing and his three friends go looking for him, they discover the battered Jumanji video game down in his basement, with Spencer's mobile phone and coat laying nearby. They realise that Spencer has ventured back into Jumanji and decide that they must join him in order to increase his chances of getting out of there alive. But this time round, it's not just the teens who get pulled into the game, as Eddie and Milo also find themselves inside Jumanji. And, just to mix things up a bit from the last movie, not everyone winds up in the same avatar as they did before either. So, similar to what we got last time, we're treated to plenty of comedy moments while everyone becomes accustomed to their new body and is either disgusted or overjoyed with what they've got. Grandpa Eddie finds himself as Dr. Bravestone while Milo is Franklin 'Mouse' Finbar, so obviously now having a fully functional, new and improved body is a pretty big deal for the old timers. Seeing Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart act out their very best impersonations of DeVito and Glover is a lot of fun and straight away serves up a completely different dynamic to that of the first movie. On top of that, there are some differences in the skills and weaknesses that each avatar now possesses and the introduction throughout the movie of a few more avatars in order to cater for the additional players who are now in the game.
When it comes to the quest that the team must embark upon in order to beat the game, this doesn't seem quite as well fleshed out or developed as in Welcome to the Jungle, and it's where this movie is lacking. The villain isn't at all interesting, and neither is the journey they take in order to get there. There are a couple of big fun action scenes, but also a lot of filler scenes that are somewhat lacking. It's still that winning formula from the previous movie, but with something missing.
As before though, it's the characters that shine through and make this all the more enjoyable. Probably the biggest addition this time round is Awkwafina as Ming Fleetfoot, who proves to be just as entertaining as the rest of the avatars. And, just to keep us on our toes, there are a couple of times where a dip in some magical water causes the players to switch avatars, meaning the cast get a chance to act in a different way as they get to grips with a new body and skills again.
Overall, Jumanji: The Next Level felt like more of the same, only not quite as good as Welcome to the Jungle. Obviously, there's a teaser or two of a sequel at the end of the movie and I'm sure the characters telling each other that they'll “never go back again” won't be enough to stop that from happening should this movie do as well as the last one!
Our four teens from Welcome to the Jungle are all still great friends following their ordeal/adventure together, although Spencer has become more distant from the group over the last year, seeming rather unhappy and depressed with life. As the rest of the group excitedly exchange messages on Whatsapp in preparation to return home for a Christmas reunion, Spencer is getting yelled at by his boss before struggling with a broken suitcase in the pouring rain as he heads to catch the bus home. When he does make it home, his Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) is staying with them while he recovers from a hip operation, and Spencer now has the pleasure of sharing his bedroom with him. Complaining about old age, Eddie is the kind of grumpy character that Danny DeVito plays so perfectly and we are also introduced soon after to an old friend of his, Milo (Danny Glover). Eddie and Milo are former partners in the restaurant business, but haven't been on the best of terms over the last 15 years since they sold the restaurant and parted on not the best of terms.
When Spencer suddenly goes missing and his three friends go looking for him, they discover the battered Jumanji video game down in his basement, with Spencer's mobile phone and coat laying nearby. They realise that Spencer has ventured back into Jumanji and decide that they must join him in order to increase his chances of getting out of there alive. But this time round, it's not just the teens who get pulled into the game, as Eddie and Milo also find themselves inside Jumanji. And, just to mix things up a bit from the last movie, not everyone winds up in the same avatar as they did before either. So, similar to what we got last time, we're treated to plenty of comedy moments while everyone becomes accustomed to their new body and is either disgusted or overjoyed with what they've got. Grandpa Eddie finds himself as Dr. Bravestone while Milo is Franklin 'Mouse' Finbar, so obviously now having a fully functional, new and improved body is a pretty big deal for the old timers. Seeing Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart act out their very best impersonations of DeVito and Glover is a lot of fun and straight away serves up a completely different dynamic to that of the first movie. On top of that, there are some differences in the skills and weaknesses that each avatar now possesses and the introduction throughout the movie of a few more avatars in order to cater for the additional players who are now in the game.
When it comes to the quest that the team must embark upon in order to beat the game, this doesn't seem quite as well fleshed out or developed as in Welcome to the Jungle, and it's where this movie is lacking. The villain isn't at all interesting, and neither is the journey they take in order to get there. There are a couple of big fun action scenes, but also a lot of filler scenes that are somewhat lacking. It's still that winning formula from the previous movie, but with something missing.
As before though, it's the characters that shine through and make this all the more enjoyable. Probably the biggest addition this time round is Awkwafina as Ming Fleetfoot, who proves to be just as entertaining as the rest of the avatars. And, just to keep us on our toes, there are a couple of times where a dip in some magical water causes the players to switch avatars, meaning the cast get a chance to act in a different way as they get to grips with a new body and skills again.
Overall, Jumanji: The Next Level felt like more of the same, only not quite as good as Welcome to the Jungle. Obviously, there's a teaser or two of a sequel at the end of the movie and I'm sure the characters telling each other that they'll “never go back again” won't be enough to stop that from happening should this movie do as well as the last one!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019 (Updated Aug 11, 2019)
The monsters. (1 more)
Special effects - blend of CG and practical.
The Pale Lady. (2 more)
Basic rinse and repeat horror formula.
No emotional attachment to characters.
Fishing for Turds
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is probably considered the introduction to horror fiction for anyone who was in middle school in the mid to late 1990s. I distinctly remember checking out at least one of the books before I was a teenager, but the story that has stuck with me multiple decades later has and always will be, “The Red Spot.” The thing about the Scary Stories books is that they were just these random collections of creepy tales meant to make the reader anxious, uneasy, or even frightened, so the fact that somebody attempted to make a coherent film out of a jumbled mix of stories from all three books is kind of incredible.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
There has definitely been a shift in the characters that women are portraying in the movies. No longer happy to be relegated to the damsel in distress who is looking for their Prince Charming to rescue them, they become bad-ass avengers who aren’t afraid to kick-butt and take names. There is no better example of this than Lisbeth Salander, everyone’s favorite goth super-hacker and vigilante. In The Girl in the Spider’s Web, based on the best-selling novel of the same name, we see Lisbeth at her finest and it is an action packed, butt kicking good time.
Lisbeth (Claire Foy) leads a life as a vigilante who targets men that abuse woman ensuring they pay for their evil deeds. She’s not afraid to play hardball and threaten their very existence to ensure that justice is served. In the middle of punishing all the right people, Lisbeth receives a hacking opportunity that she can’t refuse, involving an application where simply logging in allows you to take over the world’s nuclear weapons. This super application was originally created and sold to the NSA in Washington and Lisbeth is tasked with stealing it back and returning it to the original creator so that it can be properly destroyed. Lisbeth successfully steals the application but that then makes her the target of not only the NSA whom she had stolen it from originally, but also another secretive group who has their own nefarious plans.
The film quickly goes from Lisbeth and her “simple” vigilante ways to becoming a global thriller that spans multiple countries and agencies. Not only does the plot change quickly but Lisbeth’s character also morph’s from being a Black Canary type vigilante to becoming a female version of Mission Impossible’s Ethan Hunt. Even though playing a female Ethan Hunt is different from Lisbeth’s usual trope her skills fit nicely into her new role. Her ability to hack into any computer system comes in handy quite a few times and lets us have a tie to the Lisbeth we know and love, but we also get to see her flex her wits and general bad-assery a bit deeper during her “impossible mission”. The film was definitely not what I expected but I was still pleasantly surprised.
The Swedish setting where the movie takes place was gorgeous and varies from desolate abandoned buildings to chases in the middle of sprawling cities. It utilizes the snow-covered landscape and decrepit buildings to create a sense of isolation, even when the streets themselves are packed with cars. Along with the isolation from the setting we also see the use of both old and new technology, which gives a low-tech feel to what is an otherwise a high stakes mission. Both the setting and the technology allows us to see that Lisbeth is a force to be reckoned with no matter what type of adversity she faces.
Which brings me to the one of the best parts of the movie and that is Claire Foy’s absolutely amazing portrayal of Lisbeth. We already knew she did a great job playing a royal in The Crown and as the wife of astronaut Neil Armstrong in First Man but relinquishing her usual elegant and classy portrayals to spectacularly play one of the biggest, baddest female characters around shows the true depth of her talent. She is definitely the star of the show and now I am an even bigger fan of hers than I already was. I was also impressed with the other main characters, including investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Sverrir Gudnason), who plays less of role than in the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but does a great job nonetheless, and the young boy, August Balder (Christopher Convery) that holds the key to the entire mission excellently played by Christopher Convery. The trio make an unusual team, but how the characters (and actors) play on each other’s strengths and weaknesses to complement each other brings heart to a movie that could have easily been 100% an action adventure.
The one aspect I feel could (and should) have been fleshed out more, was Lisbeth’s character as a battered woman’s vigilante. The movie started off with a very strong vigilante scene, but the vigilante theme is quickly forgotten until the very end of the film where we find out it was the sole catalyst of the main adversary. This oversight sadly turned what could have been a woman’s justice vigilante movie into a more run-of-the-mill super spy movie. That’s not necessarily bad, it is still action packed and full of twists and turns, but it’s definitely a missed opportunity to show more of who Lisbeth is.
The Girl in the Spider’s Web is filled with action, gadgets, and car chases though beautiful scenery and it is an excellent movie to see if you are looking for something different than green grinches and Nazi zombies. It’s not the movie I went in expecting to see, but I’m not complaining as it is still a solid film. Even though it diverts away from the more artistic The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo it is a very good action-packed thriller that would stack up nicely next to the Mission Impossible movies it is reminiscent of. It’s definitely a movie I recommend to action movie fans everywhere.
Lisbeth (Claire Foy) leads a life as a vigilante who targets men that abuse woman ensuring they pay for their evil deeds. She’s not afraid to play hardball and threaten their very existence to ensure that justice is served. In the middle of punishing all the right people, Lisbeth receives a hacking opportunity that she can’t refuse, involving an application where simply logging in allows you to take over the world’s nuclear weapons. This super application was originally created and sold to the NSA in Washington and Lisbeth is tasked with stealing it back and returning it to the original creator so that it can be properly destroyed. Lisbeth successfully steals the application but that then makes her the target of not only the NSA whom she had stolen it from originally, but also another secretive group who has their own nefarious plans.
The film quickly goes from Lisbeth and her “simple” vigilante ways to becoming a global thriller that spans multiple countries and agencies. Not only does the plot change quickly but Lisbeth’s character also morph’s from being a Black Canary type vigilante to becoming a female version of Mission Impossible’s Ethan Hunt. Even though playing a female Ethan Hunt is different from Lisbeth’s usual trope her skills fit nicely into her new role. Her ability to hack into any computer system comes in handy quite a few times and lets us have a tie to the Lisbeth we know and love, but we also get to see her flex her wits and general bad-assery a bit deeper during her “impossible mission”. The film was definitely not what I expected but I was still pleasantly surprised.
The Swedish setting where the movie takes place was gorgeous and varies from desolate abandoned buildings to chases in the middle of sprawling cities. It utilizes the snow-covered landscape and decrepit buildings to create a sense of isolation, even when the streets themselves are packed with cars. Along with the isolation from the setting we also see the use of both old and new technology, which gives a low-tech feel to what is an otherwise a high stakes mission. Both the setting and the technology allows us to see that Lisbeth is a force to be reckoned with no matter what type of adversity she faces.
Which brings me to the one of the best parts of the movie and that is Claire Foy’s absolutely amazing portrayal of Lisbeth. We already knew she did a great job playing a royal in The Crown and as the wife of astronaut Neil Armstrong in First Man but relinquishing her usual elegant and classy portrayals to spectacularly play one of the biggest, baddest female characters around shows the true depth of her talent. She is definitely the star of the show and now I am an even bigger fan of hers than I already was. I was also impressed with the other main characters, including investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Sverrir Gudnason), who plays less of role than in the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but does a great job nonetheless, and the young boy, August Balder (Christopher Convery) that holds the key to the entire mission excellently played by Christopher Convery. The trio make an unusual team, but how the characters (and actors) play on each other’s strengths and weaknesses to complement each other brings heart to a movie that could have easily been 100% an action adventure.
The one aspect I feel could (and should) have been fleshed out more, was Lisbeth’s character as a battered woman’s vigilante. The movie started off with a very strong vigilante scene, but the vigilante theme is quickly forgotten until the very end of the film where we find out it was the sole catalyst of the main adversary. This oversight sadly turned what could have been a woman’s justice vigilante movie into a more run-of-the-mill super spy movie. That’s not necessarily bad, it is still action packed and full of twists and turns, but it’s definitely a missed opportunity to show more of who Lisbeth is.
The Girl in the Spider’s Web is filled with action, gadgets, and car chases though beautiful scenery and it is an excellent movie to see if you are looking for something different than green grinches and Nazi zombies. It’s not the movie I went in expecting to see, but I’m not complaining as it is still a solid film. Even though it diverts away from the more artistic The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo it is a very good action-packed thriller that would stack up nicely next to the Mission Impossible movies it is reminiscent of. It’s definitely a movie I recommend to action movie fans everywhere.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Princess of Thorns in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<i>Princess of Thorns</i> isn't even a retelling – it's <b>just a fairy tale (pun may be intended) where the original characters are quite dead (poisoned, murdered, suicidal, etc.) and the spawn of Aurora 1.0 and Stephen is cursed in exchange for her fairy blessings.</b>
That particular spawn, who I'm calling Aurora 2.0 (simply because <i>THE</i> Sleeping Beauty was born as Aurora but Stacey Jay calls her Rose), apparently has a brother who gets captured by the ogre queen and she decides to pose as said brother to raise an army to overthrow the ogre queen. Early on in her journey – the beginning of the book, in actuality – Aurora meets Prince Niklaas, son of the immortal king of Kanvasola and wait for it...
Also cursed.
I won't complain too much about <i>Princess of Thorns</i> – it's a neat idea and there's really not much you can do with a retelling of a princess who sleeps a hundred years and gets woken up by a kiss from a prince who goes through thorns and fights a green-fire breathing dragon witch known as Maleficent. I pretty much applaud authors who toy around with Sleeping Beauty – it's interesting to see what comes out of it.
But <b>the book is <i>sooo</i> confusing</b>. From the beginning, Jay quite literally throws us in a world where Aurora is aware of what's going on around her, but <b>I have no clue what's going on.</b> Aurora thinks she's seeing a hottie who she thinks is a "Golden God" – great! But what in the world is going on? All I know is she's been with the fey for ten years and she may or may not be with them right at that time, and whatever was going on for fifteen pages certainly doesn't sound very fey-like. I also know that her mother, the original Sleeping Beauty, is dead.
There were also <b>a few things that just seemed really ridiculous.</b>
The <b>names are just not as creative</b> as Stacey Jay might be aiming them to be. Niklaas, Haanah, Ekeeta, and the name that almost made me bawl in laughter? Nippa. It's almost as though <b>in an effort to "foreignize" the names, Jay either "drawls" out a letter or it justs sounds like another word in the English language (sometimes, it's not even pleasant).</b> In that case, I'll be Sofeeyah.
<b>The entire concept of Aurora dressing up as her brother without anyone being aware was also a bit suspicious.</b> Aurora slips up A LOT in front of Niklaas throughout the journey, and <b>I'm a bit peeved he doesn't even question it THE ENTIRE TIME.</b> If her brother were younger than fourteen and disguised Aurora slipped up a few times, then maybe it would have worked better. But Aurora's captured brother is <i>fourteen</i> – I doubt fourteen-year-old boys sound like high-pitched girls. As much as I applaud Aurora for having the guts to venture out in the world on her own to take down an ogre queen, <b>I just don't buy her manliness.</b>
In all honesty, though, <b>Aurora as a Jor was a lot better than Aurora as a girl</b> – she's desperate as Niklaas gets closer to his eighteenth birthday. It's quite literally, "Dude, come on! Marry me already!" And Niklaas is all mopey. "All is lost. No princess loves me, so dear God and all that is Holy, END THIS AND TURN ME INTO A SWAN ALREADY SO I CAN SWAN THE REST OF MY LIFE AWAY WITH MY SWANNING BROS."
Aurora's approaching meeting with the ogre queen seemed <b>really weird, abrupt, and cheesy</b> – I felt like I just wrote a story in sixth grade where the bad guy goes all, "Oh, I'm so sorry! Let me just accept my punishment and go to flaming Hell." while being completely solemn. And obviously, the story becomes all happily ever after.
The entire explanation makes sense, but <b>the execution just seemed weird and quick</b> and somewhere in the process, the author realized, "Oh, wait. This is going on 400 hundred pages. I better wrap this up and wrap it up quickly, or I'll end up boring the crap out of my readers if I throw in deception and go on 600 or more pages!"
Disclaimer: I'm not making fun of the author. I'm quite literally saying I felt as though I was in sixth grade, writing a story with an actual limited number of pages and I <i>had</i> to wrap it up, so I did it abruptly. That was actually a true story. I did get a decent grade, so I must have done something right, right?
Also, at the time of writing this review, I was feeling more sarcastic than usual (though Lupe and Rundus would probably say I'm sarcastic 24/7). <b><i>Princess of Thorns</i> had a decent idea, but there were quite a bit of bumps and mucho ridiculousness throughout that made the story fall rather than burst out feathers and fly (see what I did there?).</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-princess-of-thorns-by-stacey-jay/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
That particular spawn, who I'm calling Aurora 2.0 (simply because <i>THE</i> Sleeping Beauty was born as Aurora but Stacey Jay calls her Rose), apparently has a brother who gets captured by the ogre queen and she decides to pose as said brother to raise an army to overthrow the ogre queen. Early on in her journey – the beginning of the book, in actuality – Aurora meets Prince Niklaas, son of the immortal king of Kanvasola and wait for it...
Also cursed.
I won't complain too much about <i>Princess of Thorns</i> – it's a neat idea and there's really not much you can do with a retelling of a princess who sleeps a hundred years and gets woken up by a kiss from a prince who goes through thorns and fights a green-fire breathing dragon witch known as Maleficent. I pretty much applaud authors who toy around with Sleeping Beauty – it's interesting to see what comes out of it.
But <b>the book is <i>sooo</i> confusing</b>. From the beginning, Jay quite literally throws us in a world where Aurora is aware of what's going on around her, but <b>I have no clue what's going on.</b> Aurora thinks she's seeing a hottie who she thinks is a "Golden God" – great! But what in the world is going on? All I know is she's been with the fey for ten years and she may or may not be with them right at that time, and whatever was going on for fifteen pages certainly doesn't sound very fey-like. I also know that her mother, the original Sleeping Beauty, is dead.
There were also <b>a few things that just seemed really ridiculous.</b>
The <b>names are just not as creative</b> as Stacey Jay might be aiming them to be. Niklaas, Haanah, Ekeeta, and the name that almost made me bawl in laughter? Nippa. It's almost as though <b>in an effort to "foreignize" the names, Jay either "drawls" out a letter or it justs sounds like another word in the English language (sometimes, it's not even pleasant).</b> In that case, I'll be Sofeeyah.
<b>The entire concept of Aurora dressing up as her brother without anyone being aware was also a bit suspicious.</b> Aurora slips up A LOT in front of Niklaas throughout the journey, and <b>I'm a bit peeved he doesn't even question it THE ENTIRE TIME.</b> If her brother were younger than fourteen and disguised Aurora slipped up a few times, then maybe it would have worked better. But Aurora's captured brother is <i>fourteen</i> – I doubt fourteen-year-old boys sound like high-pitched girls. As much as I applaud Aurora for having the guts to venture out in the world on her own to take down an ogre queen, <b>I just don't buy her manliness.</b>
In all honesty, though, <b>Aurora as a Jor was a lot better than Aurora as a girl</b> – she's desperate as Niklaas gets closer to his eighteenth birthday. It's quite literally, "Dude, come on! Marry me already!" And Niklaas is all mopey. "All is lost. No princess loves me, so dear God and all that is Holy, END THIS AND TURN ME INTO A SWAN ALREADY SO I CAN SWAN THE REST OF MY LIFE AWAY WITH MY SWANNING BROS."
Aurora's approaching meeting with the ogre queen seemed <b>really weird, abrupt, and cheesy</b> – I felt like I just wrote a story in sixth grade where the bad guy goes all, "Oh, I'm so sorry! Let me just accept my punishment and go to flaming Hell." while being completely solemn. And obviously, the story becomes all happily ever after.
The entire explanation makes sense, but <b>the execution just seemed weird and quick</b> and somewhere in the process, the author realized, "Oh, wait. This is going on 400 hundred pages. I better wrap this up and wrap it up quickly, or I'll end up boring the crap out of my readers if I throw in deception and go on 600 or more pages!"
Disclaimer: I'm not making fun of the author. I'm quite literally saying I felt as though I was in sixth grade, writing a story with an actual limited number of pages and I <i>had</i> to wrap it up, so I did it abruptly. That was actually a true story. I did get a decent grade, so I must have done something right, right?
Also, at the time of writing this review, I was feeling more sarcastic than usual (though Lupe and Rundus would probably say I'm sarcastic 24/7). <b><i>Princess of Thorns</i> had a decent idea, but there were quite a bit of bumps and mucho ridiculousness throughout that made the story fall rather than burst out feathers and fly (see what I did there?).</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-princess-of-thorns-by-stacey-jay/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>