Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Transcendence (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
First time director and Academy award-winning cinematographer Wally Pfister (Inception, The Dark
Knight Trilogy) takes on an ambitious film both visually and thematically for his first attempt at the
director chair. And while he hits all the visual cues you would expect from someone who has worked
so closely with Christopher Nolan on several films, he does less so when it comes telling us a story
that works in the world that he is presenting to us on screen. And thus this film falls flat, muddled and
fragmented in its story.
Visually the film provides you with framing and movement that that is easy to follow and pleasing to
look at. Along with the score, the look of the film constantly feels like it is taking you somewhere grand
or eye-opening. However it never quite gets there as the passage of time is not clear which creates a
fragmented sense of reality.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the film, the viewer is expecting a form of payoff or definitive
stance from the message of the story. But instead the story falls flat upon itself by not clearly defining
the characters motivations on screen. That is not to say that the film is acted poorly, it is just that
there really isn’t any reason to believe the motivations of the characters because they were never
shown to us. We are supposed to believe that the love between Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, the
leading artificial intelligence researcher and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) is the reason why the plot is
developing. But we are never truly shown the reason why their love is so strong. Furthermore, when Dr.
Caster is shot to stop him from furthering his research, his own wife Evelyn barley even sheds a tear.
Why then would I believe her ridiculous motivations to follow a self-aware artificial intelligence that she
believes is her husband, down the rabbit hole for years without constant reassurance that it is in fact her
Husband, which we never really get any explanation of? Nor do we get any reassurance that she loves
him, other than an occasional had touching a computer screen. I get that people greave in different
ways, but not all ways work on advancing a story on film.
Perhaps the biggest disjointed story development is when the Caster’s close friend and colleague Max
(Paul Bettany) is kidnapped by extremists for two years and no one is looking for him. Furthermore,
when he reappears after being told that two years has passed, he is now trying to stop the evolution of
AI that he helped create without more than a mere sentence. The film keeps reminding us that people
fear what they don’t understand, which is right. I fear I don’t understand the motivation behind the
characters without being shown or explained what happened to them or why they are doing something.
As if this was not enough, at no real point did any of ancillary characters matter. Cillian Murphy
represents the government at large as the lone FBI agent in the film. But his purpose is meaningless as
he does nothing to stop anything suspicious until the final act. What is worse, is that he was brought in
to stop the extremist (that are mostly forgotten after the first act) but then sides with them to attempt
to stop the AI. The same AI he let grow out of control in the first place.
I am not even going to go into the “pod-people” plot as it seemed as a way to try to advance the story
to an ending. As if these good scientists, who are just trying to help the world, have crossed the line or
something. This, which Evelyn still doesn’t see a problem with and continues to allow for years until
Morgan Freeman shows up and tells her to get out of her situation and away from the AI. At which
point, she mulls it over for perhaps a day and decides she is done. Ugh. You have come this far with no
reason, why stop? Just keep going?
I, like most movie goers, am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the reasons for what I am
watching on screen make sense in the world shown to me. A few scenes here or there that provided
explanation or reason why is should care about these characters would have been appreciated and
helped this movie be less disjointed and muddled. Because of this, I really cannot recommend this film
to anyone except those who want to think abstractly about AI. But be warned, thematically, there is no
clear stance on weather that is good or bad either.
Knight Trilogy) takes on an ambitious film both visually and thematically for his first attempt at the
director chair. And while he hits all the visual cues you would expect from someone who has worked
so closely with Christopher Nolan on several films, he does less so when it comes telling us a story
that works in the world that he is presenting to us on screen. And thus this film falls flat, muddled and
fragmented in its story.
Visually the film provides you with framing and movement that that is easy to follow and pleasing to
look at. Along with the score, the look of the film constantly feels like it is taking you somewhere grand
or eye-opening. However it never quite gets there as the passage of time is not clear which creates a
fragmented sense of reality.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the film, the viewer is expecting a form of payoff or definitive
stance from the message of the story. But instead the story falls flat upon itself by not clearly defining
the characters motivations on screen. That is not to say that the film is acted poorly, it is just that
there really isn’t any reason to believe the motivations of the characters because they were never
shown to us. We are supposed to believe that the love between Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, the
leading artificial intelligence researcher and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) is the reason why the plot is
developing. But we are never truly shown the reason why their love is so strong. Furthermore, when Dr.
Caster is shot to stop him from furthering his research, his own wife Evelyn barley even sheds a tear.
Why then would I believe her ridiculous motivations to follow a self-aware artificial intelligence that she
believes is her husband, down the rabbit hole for years without constant reassurance that it is in fact her
Husband, which we never really get any explanation of? Nor do we get any reassurance that she loves
him, other than an occasional had touching a computer screen. I get that people greave in different
ways, but not all ways work on advancing a story on film.
Perhaps the biggest disjointed story development is when the Caster’s close friend and colleague Max
(Paul Bettany) is kidnapped by extremists for two years and no one is looking for him. Furthermore,
when he reappears after being told that two years has passed, he is now trying to stop the evolution of
AI that he helped create without more than a mere sentence. The film keeps reminding us that people
fear what they don’t understand, which is right. I fear I don’t understand the motivation behind the
characters without being shown or explained what happened to them or why they are doing something.
As if this was not enough, at no real point did any of ancillary characters matter. Cillian Murphy
represents the government at large as the lone FBI agent in the film. But his purpose is meaningless as
he does nothing to stop anything suspicious until the final act. What is worse, is that he was brought in
to stop the extremist (that are mostly forgotten after the first act) but then sides with them to attempt
to stop the AI. The same AI he let grow out of control in the first place.
I am not even going to go into the “pod-people” plot as it seemed as a way to try to advance the story
to an ending. As if these good scientists, who are just trying to help the world, have crossed the line or
something. This, which Evelyn still doesn’t see a problem with and continues to allow for years until
Morgan Freeman shows up and tells her to get out of her situation and away from the AI. At which
point, she mulls it over for perhaps a day and decides she is done. Ugh. You have come this far with no
reason, why stop? Just keep going?
I, like most movie goers, am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the reasons for what I am
watching on screen make sense in the world shown to me. A few scenes here or there that provided
explanation or reason why is should care about these characters would have been appreciated and
helped this movie be less disjointed and muddled. Because of this, I really cannot recommend this film
to anyone except those who want to think abstractly about AI. But be warned, thematically, there is no
clear stance on weather that is good or bad either.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Tempestuous (Twisted Lit #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog, <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>, in September).
I read Exposure (Twisted Lit #2) first (review up in a couple of days), and while I enjoyed that one better, Tempestuous is still a good read. I can't comment on how much alike it is to The Tempest by Shakespeare because I've never read that play by Shakespeare.
Miranda Prospero used to be a popular girl, but after one of her ideas gets people in trouble, she becomes a social pariah. One night, while working at the hot dog stand in the mall, there's a horrible snowstorm, and everyoen is locked in the mall overnight including Miranda and her former friends and ex-boyfriend. As she plots revenge against them, there's also a series of break-ins going on at the mall. It doesn't take long for Miranda to realize that the thief is also locked in the mall. Miranda must learn what's important or else she may be in more trouble.
I love the cover! I love how plain it is, yet how artistic it is at the same time. The colors go together really well, and I love the little soda cup on the cover.
The title is fantastic because not only is this a retelling of The Tempest by Shakespeare, but it also describes the weather in the book as well as Miranda's life at the moment.
I thought the world building was alright and the setting fantastic. I've always wondered what it would be like to be stuck in a mall. I'd probably hate it, but I'd like to imagine it'd be like what Miranda's night was like. I just kind of found it hard to believe that people would just go into any closed shop willy nilly for supplies and loot. I also found it kind of hard to believe that key holders would just open their shops for people. I would've loved to have more back story on Miranda's fall from grace. I would've liked the book to open up with her being part of the popular crowd, and then read about her incident that lead her to be a social outcast, followed by the story I just read. Yes, it would make a longer book, but I think I would've found that super interesting.
The pacing is alright in this book. I didn't devour this book so to speak. I wasn't bored with it, and the pacing is by no means slow, I just didn't get as interested in it as I have with other books.
I like the whole plot about being stuck in a mall and wondering what's going to happen that night. There are many subplots like how Miranda reacts to her former friends and ex-boyfriend, her love life, her friendships and other decisions. I like how there was also the subplot involving a thief locked inside the mall with everyone. I must admit that I was trying to find out who the thief was (and getting it wrong) throughout the book. I only realized who the thief was when Miranda did.
I felt that the characters were written well. I could totally understand about Miranda wanting revenge on those who shamed her and bullied her. I'm not condoning revenge by no means, but I could relate to that feeling. I loved how down to Earth Miranda seemed and how much she cared for people. Caleb came across as being a little bit of a dork, but that's what I loved about him! His dorkiness was actually kind of cute! I also loved how Chad was athletic, but the authors didn't make him out to be some brainless jock. Chad was actually a very sweet and caring guy, and I loved him. My favorite character was Ariel though. I loved her naivety and innocence. I loved how she seemed to find beauty in everything. I just wanted to hug Ariel a lot throughout the book.
I enjoyed the dialogue. None of it felt forced which was good. Everything flowed smoothly, and I found myself even laughing at some of the dialogue (because it was meant to be funny, not because it was bad or anything). There are a few swear words in the book, but nothing major.
Overall, Tempestuous is a fun story that lets you live a night being stuck in a mall with it's likable characters, great dialogue and interesting plot.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who want to read something with characters that they can relate to.
I'd give Tempestuous (Twisted Lit #1) by Kim Askew & Amy Helmes a 3.75 out of 5.
(I received this book for free from the authors for a giveaway. I was not required to write a review).
I read Exposure (Twisted Lit #2) first (review up in a couple of days), and while I enjoyed that one better, Tempestuous is still a good read. I can't comment on how much alike it is to The Tempest by Shakespeare because I've never read that play by Shakespeare.
Miranda Prospero used to be a popular girl, but after one of her ideas gets people in trouble, she becomes a social pariah. One night, while working at the hot dog stand in the mall, there's a horrible snowstorm, and everyoen is locked in the mall overnight including Miranda and her former friends and ex-boyfriend. As she plots revenge against them, there's also a series of break-ins going on at the mall. It doesn't take long for Miranda to realize that the thief is also locked in the mall. Miranda must learn what's important or else she may be in more trouble.
I love the cover! I love how plain it is, yet how artistic it is at the same time. The colors go together really well, and I love the little soda cup on the cover.
The title is fantastic because not only is this a retelling of The Tempest by Shakespeare, but it also describes the weather in the book as well as Miranda's life at the moment.
I thought the world building was alright and the setting fantastic. I've always wondered what it would be like to be stuck in a mall. I'd probably hate it, but I'd like to imagine it'd be like what Miranda's night was like. I just kind of found it hard to believe that people would just go into any closed shop willy nilly for supplies and loot. I also found it kind of hard to believe that key holders would just open their shops for people. I would've loved to have more back story on Miranda's fall from grace. I would've liked the book to open up with her being part of the popular crowd, and then read about her incident that lead her to be a social outcast, followed by the story I just read. Yes, it would make a longer book, but I think I would've found that super interesting.
The pacing is alright in this book. I didn't devour this book so to speak. I wasn't bored with it, and the pacing is by no means slow, I just didn't get as interested in it as I have with other books.
I like the whole plot about being stuck in a mall and wondering what's going to happen that night. There are many subplots like how Miranda reacts to her former friends and ex-boyfriend, her love life, her friendships and other decisions. I like how there was also the subplot involving a thief locked inside the mall with everyone. I must admit that I was trying to find out who the thief was (and getting it wrong) throughout the book. I only realized who the thief was when Miranda did.
I felt that the characters were written well. I could totally understand about Miranda wanting revenge on those who shamed her and bullied her. I'm not condoning revenge by no means, but I could relate to that feeling. I loved how down to Earth Miranda seemed and how much she cared for people. Caleb came across as being a little bit of a dork, but that's what I loved about him! His dorkiness was actually kind of cute! I also loved how Chad was athletic, but the authors didn't make him out to be some brainless jock. Chad was actually a very sweet and caring guy, and I loved him. My favorite character was Ariel though. I loved her naivety and innocence. I loved how she seemed to find beauty in everything. I just wanted to hug Ariel a lot throughout the book.
I enjoyed the dialogue. None of it felt forced which was good. Everything flowed smoothly, and I found myself even laughing at some of the dialogue (because it was meant to be funny, not because it was bad or anything). There are a few swear words in the book, but nothing major.
Overall, Tempestuous is a fun story that lets you live a night being stuck in a mall with it's likable characters, great dialogue and interesting plot.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who want to read something with characters that they can relate to.
I'd give Tempestuous (Twisted Lit #1) by Kim Askew & Amy Helmes a 3.75 out of 5.
(I received this book for free from the authors for a giveaway. I was not required to write a review).
honingwords (32 KP) rated Alias in Books
Jul 5, 2018
I’ve never read a book by Cari Hunter that I haven't loved and Alias lived up to my high expectations.
I’ve never read a book by Cari Hunter that I haven't loved and Alias lived up to my high expectations. It became available to me soon after I finished the third of her Dark Peaks trilogy so I was able to fangirl-mode right into it.
It is an absolute joy to read Cari Hunter’s books. I’m so thankful I have stumbled across her at the point where there have been a few books to binge on. It is no secret that I think she is one of the finest authors currently, and she has re-awakened my interest in crime thrillers after many years of reading solely romances. It’s a bonus that she is writing novels about regional parts of the UK.
Alias is written in the first person through-out, which is different to her other books and I found this quite refreshing.
The plot starts off with a car crash on a Welsh country road. The woman driver finds herself alive, confused as to who the dead woman beside her is, and then frustrated she doesn’t remember anything about herself, including her name, or why she was driving through Wales.
The opening scene brought tears to my eyes when I realised a great writer was going to be looking after the next few hours of my reading pleasure.
The local Police spend their time trying to work out if she should be prosecuted and she decides to keep tight-lipped about the small pieces of information that start to come back to her through her fugue while she is hospitalised, and then for the short while after she is released.
The rest of the book is about her finding out whether she is a goody or a baddy; whether she should trust Detective Bronwen Pryce, or, in fact, any of the other characters who tell her they are friends and colleagues. Cari makes us wonder about everyone until the very end of the novel.
The details! The details! Cari just loads her pages with perfect details about what is happening to the characters. There is never anything to stutter over. I never have to read a sentence twice because I didn’t understand it, or lose track of the easy-going flow.
I had to note the parts which made me beam during this book so I could re-read them at leisure. That’s it! Cari Hunter makes me beam while reading her books.
Her character’s legs are ‘wobblier than watered-down jelly’, they find ‘novelty of two cooperating lungs’, their ‘fingers poke out’ (from her splint) ‘as fat as unpopped sausages.’
Cari doesn’t simply give her characters goose pimples - they ‘tickle as they rise along her arm.’ They use ‘the painted numbers on the wheelie bins to gauge’ their progress down the street. When they eat they try ‘at first to isolate flavours and then giving up and simply enjoy the mix.’ Their stomach doesn’t just rumble; eating silences their ‘gastric percussion and leaves them with a stitch to walk off.’ The weather isn't cold, it is ‘brittle cold.’
The amnesia aspect had me in tears at points. There are people who possibly may no longer be alive and when she meets her friend for the ‘first time’ I became quite emotional.
As per her other books Cari has humorous moments throughout Alias.
The character is ‘sure that my choice of forget-me-nots wasn’t intended to be ironic.’ And there is a car-buying scene which make me laugh out loud.
There is no CSI Effect in this book. Some blood testing will be ‘four to five weeks at best’ rather than the four to five hours it can sometimes be in fiction.
I’m really sorry to learn there are no plans to take these characters further. Cari writes well-rounded characters with believable back stories and I would have loved to have seen a couple of the ones in this book teased out a little more in at least one sequel.
Don’t be picking this book up if you are looking for bodice-ripping sex. It just isn't there. Part of me cries out for more than Cari usually offers us, the part of me which craves romances. Holy Crap! She can sure write sex when she wants to but, people, this. is. a. crime. novel.
She could have put more sex in, but then it wouldn’t be true to itself, she wouldn’t be true to herself, and the novel would suffer for reader-driven gratuitous sex scenes which aren’t necessary to the plot.
If you would like recommendations for that kind of book let me know and I’ll introduce you to different genres and different authors.
For now, sit back and enjoy good down-to-earth well-written crime fiction.
It is an absolute joy to read Cari Hunter’s books. I’m so thankful I have stumbled across her at the point where there have been a few books to binge on. It is no secret that I think she is one of the finest authors currently, and she has re-awakened my interest in crime thrillers after many years of reading solely romances. It’s a bonus that she is writing novels about regional parts of the UK.
Alias is written in the first person through-out, which is different to her other books and I found this quite refreshing.
The plot starts off with a car crash on a Welsh country road. The woman driver finds herself alive, confused as to who the dead woman beside her is, and then frustrated she doesn’t remember anything about herself, including her name, or why she was driving through Wales.
The opening scene brought tears to my eyes when I realised a great writer was going to be looking after the next few hours of my reading pleasure.
The local Police spend their time trying to work out if she should be prosecuted and she decides to keep tight-lipped about the small pieces of information that start to come back to her through her fugue while she is hospitalised, and then for the short while after she is released.
The rest of the book is about her finding out whether she is a goody or a baddy; whether she should trust Detective Bronwen Pryce, or, in fact, any of the other characters who tell her they are friends and colleagues. Cari makes us wonder about everyone until the very end of the novel.
The details! The details! Cari just loads her pages with perfect details about what is happening to the characters. There is never anything to stutter over. I never have to read a sentence twice because I didn’t understand it, or lose track of the easy-going flow.
I had to note the parts which made me beam during this book so I could re-read them at leisure. That’s it! Cari Hunter makes me beam while reading her books.
Her character’s legs are ‘wobblier than watered-down jelly’, they find ‘novelty of two cooperating lungs’, their ‘fingers poke out’ (from her splint) ‘as fat as unpopped sausages.’
Cari doesn’t simply give her characters goose pimples - they ‘tickle as they rise along her arm.’ They use ‘the painted numbers on the wheelie bins to gauge’ their progress down the street. When they eat they try ‘at first to isolate flavours and then giving up and simply enjoy the mix.’ Their stomach doesn’t just rumble; eating silences their ‘gastric percussion and leaves them with a stitch to walk off.’ The weather isn't cold, it is ‘brittle cold.’
The amnesia aspect had me in tears at points. There are people who possibly may no longer be alive and when she meets her friend for the ‘first time’ I became quite emotional.
As per her other books Cari has humorous moments throughout Alias.
The character is ‘sure that my choice of forget-me-nots wasn’t intended to be ironic.’ And there is a car-buying scene which make me laugh out loud.
There is no CSI Effect in this book. Some blood testing will be ‘four to five weeks at best’ rather than the four to five hours it can sometimes be in fiction.
I’m really sorry to learn there are no plans to take these characters further. Cari writes well-rounded characters with believable back stories and I would have loved to have seen a couple of the ones in this book teased out a little more in at least one sequel.
Don’t be picking this book up if you are looking for bodice-ripping sex. It just isn't there. Part of me cries out for more than Cari usually offers us, the part of me which craves romances. Holy Crap! She can sure write sex when she wants to but, people, this. is. a. crime. novel.
She could have put more sex in, but then it wouldn’t be true to itself, she wouldn’t be true to herself, and the novel would suffer for reader-driven gratuitous sex scenes which aren’t necessary to the plot.
If you would like recommendations for that kind of book let me know and I’ll introduce you to different genres and different authors.
For now, sit back and enjoy good down-to-earth well-written crime fiction.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Werewolf: A Party Game for Devious People in Tabletop Games
Jun 24, 2021
Growing up, I lived on a cul-de-sac and the neighborhood was full of kids around my age. So if the weather was nice outside, chances were that we were all out together playing kickball, capture the flag, or some other fun games. In the summer however, our favorite activities were night games – ghost in the graveyard, kick the can, capture the flag (in the dark!), and werewolf. Fast forward many years into the future, and I find myself with a physical copy of Werewolf – a game that was taught to me under the starry skies of my youth. Does the game still hold its appeal for adults? Or is it a game that should stay in the past?
Disclaimer: We were provided with a copy of this game for the purposes for this review. What you see is a finalized production copy, and is what would be received in a retail copy. -L
Werewolf: A Party Game for Devious People (simply referred to as Werewolf from here on out), is a game of bluffing and deduction in which players are attempting to complete their objective, based on their secret roles. Werewolves are trying to outnumber the Villagers, and Villagers are trying to kill all the Werewolves. To setup for a game, assemble the deck of role cards. Each deck will always have 1 Moderator card, a number of Werewolf cards, and a number of Villager cards depended on the player count. For example, a 5-player game would have 1 Moderator, 1 Werewolf, and 3 Villagers. Each player is dealt one card and keeps their role a secret, except the Moderator. The game is now ready to begin.
Each round consists of a Night and Day phase, all facilitated by the Moderator. To start the Night phase, all players (except for the Moderator) will close their eyes. The Moderator prompts the Werewolf to awaken (open eyes) and silently point to a Villager to kill. The Werewolf then closes their eyes, and the Night phase ends. To start the Day phase, the Moderator will have all players open their eyes, and will reveal which player has been killed in the night. All remaining ‘living’ players now have a chance to discuss amongst themselves and try to figure out the identity of the Werewolf. Accused players have a chance to defend themselves, and may even throw the blame to other players. Once players reach a consensus, they will kill off the accused Werewolf. If the accused player was the Werewolf, then the Villagers win (in a 5-player game)! If the accused player was not the Werewolf, then a new round begins with a Night phase, and the Werewolf is one step closer to winning. The game ends when either the Villagers have killed the Werewolf, or the Werewolf equals or outnumbers the Villagers.
The above description is a generic rundown of the game. Many versions of Werewolf have additional roles/abilities to enhance the gameplay and add new elements to the strategy. This particular version of Werewolf does indeed include optional additional roles. Those roles are: Seer, Doctor, Drunk, Witch, and Alpha Werewolf. These optional roles grant players additional abilities/powers for use during play. For example, every Night phase, the Seer can silently ask the Moderator whether a single player is a Werewolf or not. That can definitely help in the Day phase when it is time to accuse people! The addition of these roles helps to enhance the strategic gameplay by offering more for players to do, rather than just blindly accuse and guess each round. Included in the tuck box are even some blank role cards for you to create your own roles/powers if you so choose.
The major downside to any version of Werewolf is that once a player has been killed off, if they were not the Werewolf, they are out of the game for good. So even if the game lasts for 20 more minutes, that player just has to sit there in silence.
Components. This particular Werewolf consists of a deck of role cards, rules, and a guide for the Moderator. The quality of the cards is nice, and they are easy to manipulate and are sturdy. The artwork is very minimalistic in this game, and it actually works pretty well since Werewolf really isn’t a component-based game. All in all, a good quality deck of cards.
Overall, this is just a normal game of Werewolf. Honestly, you don’t really even need any components to play – as long as everyone knows the rules and roles, you are good to go. Does having a deck of cards help? In some ways, yes. But it kind of just feels redundant to me, since I already knew how to play the game. If you’re wanting to introduce someone to the Werewolf-type game, this little deck of cards would be a good way to do it. Personally, this type of game appealed to me more as a child/teen, and it kind of falls flat to me now as an adult, thus my low score. I don’t see this game staying in my collection forever, but it had a decent run while it was here. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a calculated 4 / 12. If you’ve played any variation of Werewolf before, there’s really no need to check out this particular iteration.
Disclaimer: We were provided with a copy of this game for the purposes for this review. What you see is a finalized production copy, and is what would be received in a retail copy. -L
Werewolf: A Party Game for Devious People (simply referred to as Werewolf from here on out), is a game of bluffing and deduction in which players are attempting to complete their objective, based on their secret roles. Werewolves are trying to outnumber the Villagers, and Villagers are trying to kill all the Werewolves. To setup for a game, assemble the deck of role cards. Each deck will always have 1 Moderator card, a number of Werewolf cards, and a number of Villager cards depended on the player count. For example, a 5-player game would have 1 Moderator, 1 Werewolf, and 3 Villagers. Each player is dealt one card and keeps their role a secret, except the Moderator. The game is now ready to begin.
Each round consists of a Night and Day phase, all facilitated by the Moderator. To start the Night phase, all players (except for the Moderator) will close their eyes. The Moderator prompts the Werewolf to awaken (open eyes) and silently point to a Villager to kill. The Werewolf then closes their eyes, and the Night phase ends. To start the Day phase, the Moderator will have all players open their eyes, and will reveal which player has been killed in the night. All remaining ‘living’ players now have a chance to discuss amongst themselves and try to figure out the identity of the Werewolf. Accused players have a chance to defend themselves, and may even throw the blame to other players. Once players reach a consensus, they will kill off the accused Werewolf. If the accused player was the Werewolf, then the Villagers win (in a 5-player game)! If the accused player was not the Werewolf, then a new round begins with a Night phase, and the Werewolf is one step closer to winning. The game ends when either the Villagers have killed the Werewolf, or the Werewolf equals or outnumbers the Villagers.
The above description is a generic rundown of the game. Many versions of Werewolf have additional roles/abilities to enhance the gameplay and add new elements to the strategy. This particular version of Werewolf does indeed include optional additional roles. Those roles are: Seer, Doctor, Drunk, Witch, and Alpha Werewolf. These optional roles grant players additional abilities/powers for use during play. For example, every Night phase, the Seer can silently ask the Moderator whether a single player is a Werewolf or not. That can definitely help in the Day phase when it is time to accuse people! The addition of these roles helps to enhance the strategic gameplay by offering more for players to do, rather than just blindly accuse and guess each round. Included in the tuck box are even some blank role cards for you to create your own roles/powers if you so choose.
The major downside to any version of Werewolf is that once a player has been killed off, if they were not the Werewolf, they are out of the game for good. So even if the game lasts for 20 more minutes, that player just has to sit there in silence.
Components. This particular Werewolf consists of a deck of role cards, rules, and a guide for the Moderator. The quality of the cards is nice, and they are easy to manipulate and are sturdy. The artwork is very minimalistic in this game, and it actually works pretty well since Werewolf really isn’t a component-based game. All in all, a good quality deck of cards.
Overall, this is just a normal game of Werewolf. Honestly, you don’t really even need any components to play – as long as everyone knows the rules and roles, you are good to go. Does having a deck of cards help? In some ways, yes. But it kind of just feels redundant to me, since I already knew how to play the game. If you’re wanting to introduce someone to the Werewolf-type game, this little deck of cards would be a good way to do it. Personally, this type of game appealed to me more as a child/teen, and it kind of falls flat to me now as an adult, thus my low score. I don’t see this game staying in my collection forever, but it had a decent run while it was here. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a calculated 4 / 12. If you’ve played any variation of Werewolf before, there’s really no need to check out this particular iteration.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Broom Service in Tabletop Games
Jun 24, 2021
A show of hands for all of us who have dressed for Halloween as a witch, wizard, druid, fairy, or the like. My hand is raised. How awesome would it be to actually have power to fly – even by broomstick? Or to make some excellent magic potions? Well daydream no more. Broom Service puts you into the world of flying witches and gathering druids and even Weather Fairies all to help your business deliver potions to towers and other buildings with magical tenants.
At its heart Broom Service is a trick-taking card game with pick-up-and-deliver mechanics flowing to the board. Each player will be attempting to supply the board’s towers and castles with magic potions, but they will need to craft them first. AND one does not simply HAVE potion ingredients handy – they need to gather the correct supplies. The winner of Broom Service is the player who best can supply areas of the board by claiming tricks to increase production of said potions.
To setup place the board in the middle of the table (I am waiting for a game to come along that asks you to place the board in the Northwest quadrant of the table or something similar). Populate the board with the proper Heavy Cloud tokens to be whisked away by players for points and access to additional board areas. Place player score tokens on 10 VP along the VP track. Shuffle the Event deck and randomly place seven cards in a draw pile, revealing one into the discard. Each player will receive their two witch hat pawns to be placed on the main castles, a deck of 10 role cards from which they will choose four each round, a set of one each of the three colors of potions, and magic wands per the rules. The game can now begin!
On a player’s turn they will choose one of their four role cards and place it face down in front of themselves. Once all have done this, the starting player will announce their chosen role and declare that they wish to be Cowardly or Brave. For instance, a player may say, “I am a Cowardly Fruit Gatherer” whilst revealing their role card. By declaring Cowardly, the player immediately performs the action on the bottom of the card for Cowardly Fruit Gatherers: produce one purple potion. In order to perform the actions on top of the card the player would need to declare that they are Brave. The player will not perform the action quite yet as now play continues to the next player in line who, if they also chose to play the Fruit Gatherer card, will declare if they will also be Brave. If so, the newest player to claim Brave will be essentially winning the Brave Fruit Gatherer trick. This continues around the table until the very last Brave Fruit Gatherer has declared and won the trick. The winning player then performs the action while all other previous Brave Fruit Gatherers receive NOTHING. Brutal.
The game continues in this fashion of players bidding on Brave roles for better results (as in the example, a Brave Fruit Gatherer is able to make two purple potions AND another potion of their choice) until players have played seven rounds. They then add up their points per the rule book and the winner is determined!
Now, this is a brief explanation of the trick-taking aspect of the game, but other roles actually allow players to deliver the potions made, and still others allow players to use their magic wands to whisk away Heavy Clouds for VPs and remove their board space blocking qualities. Each time a potion is delivered, the player will earn VPs. The trick-taking aspect is simply the gist and also crux of the game.
Components. I love the components in Broom Service. The board is nice and super colorful, with all areas easy to read and understand (though some players have issues with where the towers actually lie on the board, but you must look at which area the BASES of the towers touch to determine this). The cards have wistful artwork on them and the art throughout is stellar. The wooden witch hats and potions are all great, and I love the colors used on these – I mean, orange and purple go super well together. And then there’s green. All in all the components in Broom Service are just great.
That said, I give Broom Service excellent marks because it truly is a better implementation of its predecessor, Witch’s Brew, in almost every aspect (even though my wife disagrees). The art is better, the components are better, the addition of the board and its mechanics add so much to the game. I love being able to travel to different areas of the board to deliver items, and I really don’t have too many pick-up-and-deliver style games, so this really fills a niche in my collection. Also, on another personal note, Halloween happens to be my favorite holiday and Broom Service is certainly a game for that season. I am definitely not alone in my assessment of this one, as Purple Phoenix Games gives Broom Service a whooshy 14 / 18. Come at me on this one because I am defo a Brave Mountain Witch… or just a normal reviewer who likes this game a whole lot.
At its heart Broom Service is a trick-taking card game with pick-up-and-deliver mechanics flowing to the board. Each player will be attempting to supply the board’s towers and castles with magic potions, but they will need to craft them first. AND one does not simply HAVE potion ingredients handy – they need to gather the correct supplies. The winner of Broom Service is the player who best can supply areas of the board by claiming tricks to increase production of said potions.
To setup place the board in the middle of the table (I am waiting for a game to come along that asks you to place the board in the Northwest quadrant of the table or something similar). Populate the board with the proper Heavy Cloud tokens to be whisked away by players for points and access to additional board areas. Place player score tokens on 10 VP along the VP track. Shuffle the Event deck and randomly place seven cards in a draw pile, revealing one into the discard. Each player will receive their two witch hat pawns to be placed on the main castles, a deck of 10 role cards from which they will choose four each round, a set of one each of the three colors of potions, and magic wands per the rules. The game can now begin!
On a player’s turn they will choose one of their four role cards and place it face down in front of themselves. Once all have done this, the starting player will announce their chosen role and declare that they wish to be Cowardly or Brave. For instance, a player may say, “I am a Cowardly Fruit Gatherer” whilst revealing their role card. By declaring Cowardly, the player immediately performs the action on the bottom of the card for Cowardly Fruit Gatherers: produce one purple potion. In order to perform the actions on top of the card the player would need to declare that they are Brave. The player will not perform the action quite yet as now play continues to the next player in line who, if they also chose to play the Fruit Gatherer card, will declare if they will also be Brave. If so, the newest player to claim Brave will be essentially winning the Brave Fruit Gatherer trick. This continues around the table until the very last Brave Fruit Gatherer has declared and won the trick. The winning player then performs the action while all other previous Brave Fruit Gatherers receive NOTHING. Brutal.
The game continues in this fashion of players bidding on Brave roles for better results (as in the example, a Brave Fruit Gatherer is able to make two purple potions AND another potion of their choice) until players have played seven rounds. They then add up their points per the rule book and the winner is determined!
Now, this is a brief explanation of the trick-taking aspect of the game, but other roles actually allow players to deliver the potions made, and still others allow players to use their magic wands to whisk away Heavy Clouds for VPs and remove their board space blocking qualities. Each time a potion is delivered, the player will earn VPs. The trick-taking aspect is simply the gist and also crux of the game.
Components. I love the components in Broom Service. The board is nice and super colorful, with all areas easy to read and understand (though some players have issues with where the towers actually lie on the board, but you must look at which area the BASES of the towers touch to determine this). The cards have wistful artwork on them and the art throughout is stellar. The wooden witch hats and potions are all great, and I love the colors used on these – I mean, orange and purple go super well together. And then there’s green. All in all the components in Broom Service are just great.
That said, I give Broom Service excellent marks because it truly is a better implementation of its predecessor, Witch’s Brew, in almost every aspect (even though my wife disagrees). The art is better, the components are better, the addition of the board and its mechanics add so much to the game. I love being able to travel to different areas of the board to deliver items, and I really don’t have too many pick-up-and-deliver style games, so this really fills a niche in my collection. Also, on another personal note, Halloween happens to be my favorite holiday and Broom Service is certainly a game for that season. I am definitely not alone in my assessment of this one, as Purple Phoenix Games gives Broom Service a whooshy 14 / 18. Come at me on this one because I am defo a Brave Mountain Witch… or just a normal reviewer who likes this game a whole lot.
Ari Augustine (10 KP) rated Crave (Crave, #1) in Books
May 4, 2020
I am super torn about CRAVE by Tracy Wolff.
First off, the world is kind of amazing. I did love the Hogwarts-Vampire Academy-Narnia-in-Alaska vibes I was getting from the setting. It was beautiful, secluded, and totally magical. Grace is hilarious most of the time, filled with snark and near corny knock knock jokes, but I also enjoyed how she called characters out on their crap. She wasn't always a reckless mess, which was nice, and I readily felt for her grief over the death of her parents. From the beginning, I was there for her pain, her panic attacks, her bravery, her wit, and this new adventure before her. Second to Grace is Jaxon, who I adored in so many ways. Perfection and arrogance aside, he's totally a broody vampire, but this isn't the ONLY side to his character we get, and unlike so many other characters we could compare him to, he does change throughout the course of the book. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that maybe Jaxon, not Grace, is the main lead of this story. They had amazing chemistry, sexy banter, and I deeply enjoyed the tug o' war between them.
Okay. Now for the....not so great. For one, while the setting is so magical and new, we don't really get to explore it much. Yes, we get the AMAZING library filled with witches, unusual tomes, and gargoyles, but I would have loved to hear more about the classes, the different cliques, the way this new place functioned. Unfortunately, because Grace was left out of the loop for pretty much the whole book, we were, too. So we end up not really getting to explore this new place much and that really sucked. This brings us to a second thing I struggled with: Grace.
While I absolutely adored her character, I also kind of wanted to smack her and scream "OPEN YOUR EYES". Even with Macy (her cousin) half spelling it out and with all the impossibilities going on (like students standing outside in below 0 weather without jackets), Grace just sort of files it away as odd, but shrugs. Meh. So that guy wanted to murder me? Meh. So these beads shock everyone but me? Meh. So I fell from a tree and somehow this hot guy caught me midair? Double meh. The list goes on. This went on for the ENTIRE BOOK. And while it was all painfully obvious to us, it sailed over her head like an invisible wind. This really bothered me. Just like the instalove with Jaxon bothered me. Look, I believe in instant attraction. I know a hottie when I see one and, yeah, there's always that little phase of infatuation and attraction, but this started intense and just sort of ended with love bombs. The chemistry, as I said before, was amazing, but I wished we could have had more to go on. It bothered me that Grace was constantly throwing herself at Jaxon, forcing herself on him and forcing him to open on. She also made so many assumptions about Jaxon and I was waiting for her rationale, which never really came. It's like meeting a feral dog in the tundra and believing it wont harm you because it's one of God's creatures or something. She totally idolized him, and I think that, more than anything, kept preventing me from fully loving her as a character.
Odd things I don't know how to feel about: I can totally see where people here are comparing it to Twilight. It pretty much follows the same Vampire Romance formula. Human girl meets broody vampire boy who has a dark past, a set of fangs, and, of course, many enemies. The girl almost always sacrifices herself for love and that happens here, too. I will argue that these characters had WAY MORE personality than Bella and Edward, though. In fact, I FUCKING LOVES all the scenes where Grace handed Jaxon his ass. In fact, this is pretty much why I was unable to put the book down despite all the issues I had with it later. What struck me, though, was I couldn't shake the feeling that the book was either laughing at Twilight (by being a better version of it) or if it was laughing at itself....as if Twilight were the inside joke. This was actually the most entertaining part of the book, and I was unable to figure out if this was meant to be comedic or if I was just reading it that way. Does this make sense? There were so many Twilight references and at one point, Grace event comments to herself about how she wasn't going to be like those female heroines in YA fantasy novels. I don't know. I read this alongside a friend who also felt like the book wasn't taking itself seriously, but neither of us could tell if this was deliberate or not.
Overall, it was a light and entertaining read. Was it perfect? No. Is it funny? Hell yes. Lots of delicious fangy hotness? Um...YEAH. And despite all the problems I had with it, it was still a fun book to setting into during midterms week.
First off, the world is kind of amazing. I did love the Hogwarts-Vampire Academy-Narnia-in-Alaska vibes I was getting from the setting. It was beautiful, secluded, and totally magical. Grace is hilarious most of the time, filled with snark and near corny knock knock jokes, but I also enjoyed how she called characters out on their crap. She wasn't always a reckless mess, which was nice, and I readily felt for her grief over the death of her parents. From the beginning, I was there for her pain, her panic attacks, her bravery, her wit, and this new adventure before her. Second to Grace is Jaxon, who I adored in so many ways. Perfection and arrogance aside, he's totally a broody vampire, but this isn't the ONLY side to his character we get, and unlike so many other characters we could compare him to, he does change throughout the course of the book. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that maybe Jaxon, not Grace, is the main lead of this story. They had amazing chemistry, sexy banter, and I deeply enjoyed the tug o' war between them.
Okay. Now for the....not so great. For one, while the setting is so magical and new, we don't really get to explore it much. Yes, we get the AMAZING library filled with witches, unusual tomes, and gargoyles, but I would have loved to hear more about the classes, the different cliques, the way this new place functioned. Unfortunately, because Grace was left out of the loop for pretty much the whole book, we were, too. So we end up not really getting to explore this new place much and that really sucked. This brings us to a second thing I struggled with: Grace.
While I absolutely adored her character, I also kind of wanted to smack her and scream "OPEN YOUR EYES". Even with Macy (her cousin) half spelling it out and with all the impossibilities going on (like students standing outside in below 0 weather without jackets), Grace just sort of files it away as odd, but shrugs. Meh. So that guy wanted to murder me? Meh. So these beads shock everyone but me? Meh. So I fell from a tree and somehow this hot guy caught me midair? Double meh. The list goes on. This went on for the ENTIRE BOOK. And while it was all painfully obvious to us, it sailed over her head like an invisible wind. This really bothered me. Just like the instalove with Jaxon bothered me. Look, I believe in instant attraction. I know a hottie when I see one and, yeah, there's always that little phase of infatuation and attraction, but this started intense and just sort of ended with love bombs. The chemistry, as I said before, was amazing, but I wished we could have had more to go on. It bothered me that Grace was constantly throwing herself at Jaxon, forcing herself on him and forcing him to open on. She also made so many assumptions about Jaxon and I was waiting for her rationale, which never really came. It's like meeting a feral dog in the tundra and believing it wont harm you because it's one of God's creatures or something. She totally idolized him, and I think that, more than anything, kept preventing me from fully loving her as a character.
Odd things I don't know how to feel about: I can totally see where people here are comparing it to Twilight. It pretty much follows the same Vampire Romance formula. Human girl meets broody vampire boy who has a dark past, a set of fangs, and, of course, many enemies. The girl almost always sacrifices herself for love and that happens here, too. I will argue that these characters had WAY MORE personality than Bella and Edward, though. In fact, I FUCKING LOVES all the scenes where Grace handed Jaxon his ass. In fact, this is pretty much why I was unable to put the book down despite all the issues I had with it later. What struck me, though, was I couldn't shake the feeling that the book was either laughing at Twilight (by being a better version of it) or if it was laughing at itself....as if Twilight were the inside joke. This was actually the most entertaining part of the book, and I was unable to figure out if this was meant to be comedic or if I was just reading it that way. Does this make sense? There were so many Twilight references and at one point, Grace event comments to herself about how she wasn't going to be like those female heroines in YA fantasy novels. I don't know. I read this alongside a friend who also felt like the book wasn't taking itself seriously, but neither of us could tell if this was deliberate or not.
Overall, it was a light and entertaining read. Was it perfect? No. Is it funny? Hell yes. Lots of delicious fangy hotness? Um...YEAH. And despite all the problems I had with it, it was still a fun book to setting into during midterms week.
Cumberland (1142 KP) created a post in The Smashbomb Book Club
Jun 13, 2019
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated GoodFellas (1990) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
Cast (3 more)
Sets
Script
Directing
Masterpiece
Contains spoilers, click to show
At the weekend, I was lucky enough to go and see one of my favourite films ever made on the big screen; Goodfellas. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of seeing the movie in an actual cinema, but it has been a few years since I have last seen it and seeing it after seeing some of Scorsese’s more recent efforts, I actually saw the story in a different light.
Here me out here; Goodfellas is a religious story.
I know what you are thinking, “But Scorsese has already made religious movies with The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence. Goodfellas is about gangsters and murder and the only brief mention of religion in the movie is the fact that Karen is Jewish and Henry wears a cross.” Well none of that is strictly untrue, but there were just several points of the movie that I just couldn’t help but feel an implied religious undertone.
The first of which is in the opening scene of the movie, when Henry, Tommy and Jimmy open the boot of the car to finish off Billy Batts. The bright red tail light shines harshly on Henry’s face as he watches a man die and delivers his iconic voiceover: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” Here we are being introduced to a man who is capable of literally staring death in the face and metaphorically staring into the jaws of hell without even flinching.
From this point on, Henry is our guide into this forbidden underworld. He treats us the viewers as total newcomers to this chaotic landscape as he attempts to sell to us how great it is to live this way. It’s akin to Virgil guiding Dante through the various circles of hell in the Divine Comedy. This idea of Henry being a guide into hell is most explicit in the scene of his and Karen’s first real date at the Copacabana nightclub. In this scene we are treated to a glorious tracking shot that follows the couple all the way from their car to their seat directly in front of the stage. The first major direction we are taken is down. We descend down a staircase into a hallway painted red, in fact if you pay attention to the background in this entire sequence, there is almost always at least one red object onscreen. All the way to the table, Henry is greeted by various sinners as the ‘Then He Kissed Me,’ plays in the background; a song of seduction and lust.
Another example of this is the famous scene where Henry introduces us to various gangsters such as Jimmy Two Times through voiceover. Once again, the environment is littered with red light and dark shadowed areas as we are being introduced to a batch of sinners, thieves and murderers.
After Tommy’s death, the period of seduction in the movie is over. From this point on, we are seeing the intense fall of Henry’s world. It is just as chaotic as the first half of the movie, but now Henry and his friends are no longer in charge of the chaos and slowly they are beginning to lose control of everything that was once theirs. All of a sudden the momentum that has carried the movie and Henry’s life up until this point is brought to a halt, most obviously manifested in the scene of Henry driving far too fast despite being unaware of wait awaits him ahead and having to slam on his breaks and come to a screeching stop mere inches away from crashing. What direction is he looking just prior to this? He’s looking up for the chopper that he suspects has been following him, however he is also looking in the direction of Heaven, looking for a threat of something bigger than him that threatens to put a stop to his sinful lifestyle.
In the movie’s epilogue, once Henry gives up Jimmy and Paulie to the FBI, we see him in an entirely different environment. He’s dressed different, the weather is different and he describes how he is now just a nobody like everyone else as if that to him is a fate worse that death. Almost as if, he is in Limbo. No longer is he amongst the sinners in a world of gratification and sin, but instead he is in a ‘safe,’ environment where he can’t do anything even remotely illegal or morally questionable because he is being monitored by people just waiting for him to slip up. Then the very last shot we see is Tommy shooting at the audience. This is not only a very neat bookend as both the opening scene and final scene of the movie see Tommy committing a violent act, but it signifies that elements of Henry’s old life still follow him and he will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder for demons from his old life, like Tommy waiting to snuff him out.
Maybe I’m reaching slightly with this, but I feel like at least a few of these choices were intentionally put in by Scorsese. Especially the opening scene showing the murder of Billy Batts and the tracking shot as we are taken into the Copacabana. After watching recently watching Silence and The Irishman, it is clear that faith and mortality are both things that heavily weigh on Scorsese’s mind, so I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to say that it was probably something that was at least in the back of his mind in 1990.
Regardless, this movie is a masterpiece and is still great no matter how many times you have seen it previously. It feels so authentic and genuine through the direction and presentation and the fantastic performances given by the respective cast members allow the characters to feel so real and deep. There is a reason that this is still considered as one of the seminal gangster movies. 10/10
Here me out here; Goodfellas is a religious story.
I know what you are thinking, “But Scorsese has already made religious movies with The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence. Goodfellas is about gangsters and murder and the only brief mention of religion in the movie is the fact that Karen is Jewish and Henry wears a cross.” Well none of that is strictly untrue, but there were just several points of the movie that I just couldn’t help but feel an implied religious undertone.
The first of which is in the opening scene of the movie, when Henry, Tommy and Jimmy open the boot of the car to finish off Billy Batts. The bright red tail light shines harshly on Henry’s face as he watches a man die and delivers his iconic voiceover: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” Here we are being introduced to a man who is capable of literally staring death in the face and metaphorically staring into the jaws of hell without even flinching.
From this point on, Henry is our guide into this forbidden underworld. He treats us the viewers as total newcomers to this chaotic landscape as he attempts to sell to us how great it is to live this way. It’s akin to Virgil guiding Dante through the various circles of hell in the Divine Comedy. This idea of Henry being a guide into hell is most explicit in the scene of his and Karen’s first real date at the Copacabana nightclub. In this scene we are treated to a glorious tracking shot that follows the couple all the way from their car to their seat directly in front of the stage. The first major direction we are taken is down. We descend down a staircase into a hallway painted red, in fact if you pay attention to the background in this entire sequence, there is almost always at least one red object onscreen. All the way to the table, Henry is greeted by various sinners as the ‘Then He Kissed Me,’ plays in the background; a song of seduction and lust.
Another example of this is the famous scene where Henry introduces us to various gangsters such as Jimmy Two Times through voiceover. Once again, the environment is littered with red light and dark shadowed areas as we are being introduced to a batch of sinners, thieves and murderers.
After Tommy’s death, the period of seduction in the movie is over. From this point on, we are seeing the intense fall of Henry’s world. It is just as chaotic as the first half of the movie, but now Henry and his friends are no longer in charge of the chaos and slowly they are beginning to lose control of everything that was once theirs. All of a sudden the momentum that has carried the movie and Henry’s life up until this point is brought to a halt, most obviously manifested in the scene of Henry driving far too fast despite being unaware of wait awaits him ahead and having to slam on his breaks and come to a screeching stop mere inches away from crashing. What direction is he looking just prior to this? He’s looking up for the chopper that he suspects has been following him, however he is also looking in the direction of Heaven, looking for a threat of something bigger than him that threatens to put a stop to his sinful lifestyle.
In the movie’s epilogue, once Henry gives up Jimmy and Paulie to the FBI, we see him in an entirely different environment. He’s dressed different, the weather is different and he describes how he is now just a nobody like everyone else as if that to him is a fate worse that death. Almost as if, he is in Limbo. No longer is he amongst the sinners in a world of gratification and sin, but instead he is in a ‘safe,’ environment where he can’t do anything even remotely illegal or morally questionable because he is being monitored by people just waiting for him to slip up. Then the very last shot we see is Tommy shooting at the audience. This is not only a very neat bookend as both the opening scene and final scene of the movie see Tommy committing a violent act, but it signifies that elements of Henry’s old life still follow him and he will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder for demons from his old life, like Tommy waiting to snuff him out.
Maybe I’m reaching slightly with this, but I feel like at least a few of these choices were intentionally put in by Scorsese. Especially the opening scene showing the murder of Billy Batts and the tracking shot as we are taken into the Copacabana. After watching recently watching Silence and The Irishman, it is clear that faith and mortality are both things that heavily weigh on Scorsese’s mind, so I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to say that it was probably something that was at least in the back of his mind in 1990.
Regardless, this movie is a masterpiece and is still great no matter how many times you have seen it previously. It feels so authentic and genuine through the direction and presentation and the fantastic performances given by the respective cast members allow the characters to feel so real and deep. There is a reason that this is still considered as one of the seminal gangster movies. 10/10