Search
Search results
BÁO ONLINE - Báo Mới, Tin Mới
News and Entertainment
App
Ứng dụng giúp các bạn đọc tất cả các báo điện tử hàng đầu Việt Nam dễ...
Báo Mới Online - Đọc Báo, Tin Tức, Tin Mới 24h
News and Utilities
App
Ứng dụng giúp các bạn đọc tất cả các báo điện tử hàng đầu Việt Nam dễ...
Free HD Compass
Navigation and Utilities
App
The best and unique free High-definition compass for iPad and for iPhone! Simple beautiful rustic...
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 (971 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.
Báo Mới Online Full - Đọc Tin Tức, Tin Mới 24h
News and Utilities
App
-- Phiên bản Full không có quảng cáo -- Ứng dụng giúp các bạn đọc tất cả...
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.
Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise
6.2
Rate It
Video Game
Social. The world of Piñata Island is an inviting and rewarding place to be. Family members and...