Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Passenger (Passenger, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
My very first taste of Alexandra Bracken's works didn't go bad after all (which means I don't have to mope or panic about wasting 99 cents on the first two books in her other series).
<i>Passenger</i> was a little hard for me to get into, at least in terms of characters – everything else is on good terms with me. The traveler world is a delight to read about – Bracken reveals some tidbits from significant events in history I've never actually known about unless I decide to dive into the nit picky details of world/American history or do research for fun on my own. I also love how Bracken integrates music into the traveling world.
Then there are the characters, especially Etta and Nick, who are pretty much the only characters throughout the entire novel. Everyone else appears every so often.
I'm a huge character person – I'm very nit picky about the characters I read about and is unintentionally weighed heavily on whether or not I become fond of the book or my continuation of reading the book. *cough* <i><a title="The Fifth Wave review" href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/2015/05/dnf-review-the-5th-wave-by-rick-yancey-so.html"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Fifth Wave</a></i> didn't bode too well, and that's an understatement.
We have Etta, part one of two main characters/views. She's a violin prodigy, a loner (violin is everything after all), acts superior, and pleases her mother even when she doesn't want to.
Problem? Yep. The girl acts quite bratty and thinks she's everything.
Then there's Nick. He's from another time period, bitter, and blames himself for Julian's death constantly.
What a lovely duo to contend with.
But this is when Bracken just introduces Mademoiselle Superior and Monsieur Bitter into the story. Over the course of being a passenger in this wonderful book – the pun is totally intended – that doesn't sound so wonderful as of right now, saying Nick and Etta are horrible characters is a complete understatement.
Etta is not just a violin prodigy thrown in the world of time travel, a loner, and acts like she's better than every other violinist around her. She is also someone who is fierce, stubborn, and has no problem standing up for her beliefs or speaking her mind. Perhaps she's not bratty after all.
And Nick... well... he's secretly sweet among that internal bitterness.
I'm completely fond of the two characters by the time Bracken takes me through several time periods on Nick and Etta's journey to take back the astrolabe her mother hid from the Ironwoods (who is apparently thirsty for power and creating a familial empire through time). <i>Passenger</i> is a power struggle among families and a revenge rolled into time travel adventure and romance – it's going to be interesting to see where Bracken takes the series in future novels.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-passenger-by-alexandra-bracken/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
My very first taste of Alexandra Bracken's works didn't go bad after all (which means I don't have to mope or panic about wasting 99 cents on the first two books in her other series).
<i>Passenger</i> was a little hard for me to get into, at least in terms of characters – everything else is on good terms with me. The traveler world is a delight to read about – Bracken reveals some tidbits from significant events in history I've never actually known about unless I decide to dive into the nit picky details of world/American history or do research for fun on my own. I also love how Bracken integrates music into the traveling world.
Then there are the characters, especially Etta and Nick, who are pretty much the only characters throughout the entire novel. Everyone else appears every so often.
I'm a huge character person – I'm very nit picky about the characters I read about and is unintentionally weighed heavily on whether or not I become fond of the book or my continuation of reading the book. *cough* <i><a title="The Fifth Wave review" href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/2015/05/dnf-review-the-5th-wave-by-rick-yancey-so.html"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Fifth Wave</a></i> didn't bode too well, and that's an understatement.
We have Etta, part one of two main characters/views. She's a violin prodigy, a loner (violin is everything after all), acts superior, and pleases her mother even when she doesn't want to.
Problem? Yep. The girl acts quite bratty and thinks she's everything.
Then there's Nick. He's from another time period, bitter, and blames himself for Julian's death constantly.
What a lovely duo to contend with.
But this is when Bracken just introduces Mademoiselle Superior and Monsieur Bitter into the story. Over the course of being a passenger in this wonderful book – the pun is totally intended – that doesn't sound so wonderful as of right now, saying Nick and Etta are horrible characters is a complete understatement.
Etta is not just a violin prodigy thrown in the world of time travel, a loner, and acts like she's better than every other violinist around her. She is also someone who is fierce, stubborn, and has no problem standing up for her beliefs or speaking her mind. Perhaps she's not bratty after all.
And Nick... well... he's secretly sweet among that internal bitterness.
I'm completely fond of the two characters by the time Bracken takes me through several time periods on Nick and Etta's journey to take back the astrolabe her mother hid from the Ironwoods (who is apparently thirsty for power and creating a familial empire through time). <i>Passenger</i> is a power struggle among families and a revenge rolled into time travel adventure and romance – it's going to be interesting to see where Bracken takes the series in future novels.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-passenger-by-alexandra-bracken/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
Johnny Marr recommended Out of Our Heads by The Rolling Stones in Music (curated)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Cosmic Run: Express in Tabletop Games
Oct 27, 2021
Components are obviously an integral part of games. Some games are beasts when it comes to components – boasting large numbers of included components to bolster the gameplay. And then you have games that have mastered the art of gameplay utilizing a minimal number of components. Cosmic Run: Express is one of these games, consisting of only 25 cards. But does the gameplay hold up for such a physically small game? Read on to find out!
The latest game in Dr. Finn’s Cosmic Run universe, Cosmic Run: Express pits two players against each other, racing to be the first to reach 3 new planets. It is a game of area influence and simultaneous action selection played over a series of rounds in which players are playing cards to the 3 planets to advance their movement trackers the necessary 12 points to reach the planets. To setup the game, place the 3 planet cards in numerical order between the two players. Each player takes a set of 3 movement trackers in their chosen color and places one on their side of each planet card. All of the movement trackers are set to 0 for the start of the game. Players are dealt 6 ship cards, and the game is ready to play!
To begin a round, players look at their hand of 6 cards and choose 2 to pass to their opponent. Taking the new cards into your hand, you can decide to discard 1 card and draw a new card. This is not required, but can be performed by each player in each round. Next, players will simultaneously choose a card from their hand to be played face-up next to any planet, beneath their corresponding movement tracker. You can only play a maximum of 2 cards per planet.. If the color of the card you play at a planet matches the color at the top of your movement tracker, you may immediately move your tracker up by 1. Play continues, simultaneously playing cards, until all 6 cards in hand have been played and each movement tracker has 2 cards next to it.
Now we move to the scoring/movement phase. Starting with Planet 1, compare the 2-card hands and determine which player played the best hand. The hierarchy for determining best hand is described in the rules, and that player earns 2 movement points for that planet, and adjusts their tracker accordingly. After scoring best hand, players score arrows. Underneath the number on each card is an arrow pointing either left or right, with a corresponding color. Beginning with the player who did not win best hand, look at the arrows on their 2-card hand, and score movement points if the arrows match any cards in their adjacent planets. Repeat these scoring steps for Planets 2 and 3. If, by the end of scoring, a player has earned 12 movement points and reached all 3 planets, that player is the winner! If not all 3 planets have been reached, collect all the cards, shuffle them, deal 6 to each player, and begin a new round. Rounds continue until one player has reached all 3 planets.
As a fan of the Cosmic Run universe, I was excited when I saw Cosmic Run: Express on Kickstarter. It seemed light, simple, and in the same universe as other games I loved, so I decided to back it. How does it fare? I think it’s great! For starters, I really appreciate that it is a small, portable game that can be played virtually anywhere. Lots of games these days are real table-hogs, and I enjoy the minimalistic approach of this game. Getting into the gameplay – it requires way more strategy than you initially think. There are 3 different ways in which you can score movement points (color matching, best hand, and arrow scoring) and you need to utilize all 3 for success. You are constantly evaluating your hand of cards and trying to determine which placements will yield the most points for you. Maybe you don’t have a color match, but the arrow on that card could make up for that and earn you up to 2 movement points. Another neat strategic point is that you have to pay attention to your opponent as well. The best hand points are a direct head-to-head between players, so not only do you have to maximize your own strategic points with card placement, you have to watch your opponent’s card placements and see if you can get a better hand than they do for a given planet. You are constantly engaged in this game, and that’s what I love about it.
Another great thing about Cosmic Run: Express is that it plays so quickly and effortlessly. Yes, at first there’s a tiny bit of a learning curve to remember the hierarchy for best hand, but after a couple of rounds the game flow is streamlined. It only takes 10-15 minutes to play, so it is easy to play “just one more” when you’re done. It’s light and fast enough to be a great filler between games, but it is also strategic enough to hold its own in a full game night.
So overall, how do we feel about this game? For being a nice and small 2-player game, it packs quite a punch! I was very pleasantly surprised by the amount of engagement and strategy in this game, and it is definitely one that I want to play multiple times in a row. So mission accomplished, Dr. Finn – in this case, less IS more. It’s a great little card game, and I highly recommend giving it a shot if you’re looking for something small but mighty. Purple Phoenix games gives Cosmic Run: Express a stellar 9 / 12.
The latest game in Dr. Finn’s Cosmic Run universe, Cosmic Run: Express pits two players against each other, racing to be the first to reach 3 new planets. It is a game of area influence and simultaneous action selection played over a series of rounds in which players are playing cards to the 3 planets to advance their movement trackers the necessary 12 points to reach the planets. To setup the game, place the 3 planet cards in numerical order between the two players. Each player takes a set of 3 movement trackers in their chosen color and places one on their side of each planet card. All of the movement trackers are set to 0 for the start of the game. Players are dealt 6 ship cards, and the game is ready to play!
To begin a round, players look at their hand of 6 cards and choose 2 to pass to their opponent. Taking the new cards into your hand, you can decide to discard 1 card and draw a new card. This is not required, but can be performed by each player in each round. Next, players will simultaneously choose a card from their hand to be played face-up next to any planet, beneath their corresponding movement tracker. You can only play a maximum of 2 cards per planet.. If the color of the card you play at a planet matches the color at the top of your movement tracker, you may immediately move your tracker up by 1. Play continues, simultaneously playing cards, until all 6 cards in hand have been played and each movement tracker has 2 cards next to it.
Now we move to the scoring/movement phase. Starting with Planet 1, compare the 2-card hands and determine which player played the best hand. The hierarchy for determining best hand is described in the rules, and that player earns 2 movement points for that planet, and adjusts their tracker accordingly. After scoring best hand, players score arrows. Underneath the number on each card is an arrow pointing either left or right, with a corresponding color. Beginning with the player who did not win best hand, look at the arrows on their 2-card hand, and score movement points if the arrows match any cards in their adjacent planets. Repeat these scoring steps for Planets 2 and 3. If, by the end of scoring, a player has earned 12 movement points and reached all 3 planets, that player is the winner! If not all 3 planets have been reached, collect all the cards, shuffle them, deal 6 to each player, and begin a new round. Rounds continue until one player has reached all 3 planets.
As a fan of the Cosmic Run universe, I was excited when I saw Cosmic Run: Express on Kickstarter. It seemed light, simple, and in the same universe as other games I loved, so I decided to back it. How does it fare? I think it’s great! For starters, I really appreciate that it is a small, portable game that can be played virtually anywhere. Lots of games these days are real table-hogs, and I enjoy the minimalistic approach of this game. Getting into the gameplay – it requires way more strategy than you initially think. There are 3 different ways in which you can score movement points (color matching, best hand, and arrow scoring) and you need to utilize all 3 for success. You are constantly evaluating your hand of cards and trying to determine which placements will yield the most points for you. Maybe you don’t have a color match, but the arrow on that card could make up for that and earn you up to 2 movement points. Another neat strategic point is that you have to pay attention to your opponent as well. The best hand points are a direct head-to-head between players, so not only do you have to maximize your own strategic points with card placement, you have to watch your opponent’s card placements and see if you can get a better hand than they do for a given planet. You are constantly engaged in this game, and that’s what I love about it.
Another great thing about Cosmic Run: Express is that it plays so quickly and effortlessly. Yes, at first there’s a tiny bit of a learning curve to remember the hierarchy for best hand, but after a couple of rounds the game flow is streamlined. It only takes 10-15 minutes to play, so it is easy to play “just one more” when you’re done. It’s light and fast enough to be a great filler between games, but it is also strategic enough to hold its own in a full game night.
So overall, how do we feel about this game? For being a nice and small 2-player game, it packs quite a punch! I was very pleasantly surprised by the amount of engagement and strategy in this game, and it is definitely one that I want to play multiple times in a row. So mission accomplished, Dr. Finn – in this case, less IS more. It’s a great little card game, and I highly recommend giving it a shot if you’re looking for something small but mighty. Purple Phoenix games gives Cosmic Run: Express a stellar 9 / 12.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Story of Silence in Books
Jun 17, 2021
An Arthurian tale, adapted from a 13th century lost poem, containing dragons and knights but tackling the fluid notion of gender? Sign me up! Literally! Thank you to Eidelweiss+ and HarperVoyager for the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
Silence is born a girl, but due to the laws of inheritance is raised a boy, with only 3 people knowing their true gender (one of whom, initially, is not Silence). The Story of Silence follows Silence from birth, showing their struggles between Nature and Nurture in the medieval period.
The writing style of this fantasy novel is remarkable, with an almost lyrical, ballad quality to it. The settings of Cornwall, and later Brittany, are described in such a way that captivates the reader, transporting them to the jousting fields, the towering castles and the courts of Earls and Kings.
The writing is at a slower pace, a literary journey rather than a sprint and for that reason I didn’t quite get the feeling of “I can’t put this down”, particularly in the middle of the novel. However, the twists and turns in Silence’s life were always quick to pull me back in.
As a character, the reader loves Silence from the very beginning. None of the struggles of their life are of their own making. Indeed, there are moments within this story where it would have been much simpler to tell the truth but Silence does not, displaying true knightly qualities of courage and loyalty. If I had one criticism of this book it is that, after his first “courses”, Silence doesn’t seem to find disguising his Nature very difficult., Yes, he binds his chest but he also travels on the road with male companions for years with no further mention of the more natural signs of his true nature.
The cast of characters surrounding Silence are also excellent, we have the troubled Earl Cador who, despite his original plan, it seems cannot love his child as he should; Griselle and the seneschal who do love and care for Silence and then there is Merlin.
Now, I know Silence should be my favourite character but Merlin stole the show in my opinion! There is no stoical wizard in Myers’ world, oh no! Merlin is a naked, disgusting old man who has an awful habit of laughing out loud at the unseen futures of those he passes. I also appreciated how Merlin wasn’t a solution to Silence’s problems (in fact the opposite is true!). Despite the magical undercurrent within this story, Merlin doesn’t fix everything with the flick of a magic wand – conversely he forces Silence to look inside and solve their own riddle, emphasising that you do not need to fit into one category or another, you can be both, you can be what you decide to be.
It should also be noted that, up to this point in the novel, Silence is referred to with the male pronoun, as that is how he sees himself. He is a boy. He is a knight! However, on processing Merlin’s world this pronoun notably changes to they and their. A beautiful detail that resonated how Silence had accepted their true identity.
The characterisation of women in The Story of Silence is something that has been picked up on a lot by my fellow reviewers and yes, the women in this book are often sex-crazed, deceitful, disloyal creatures. This is also an issue that is directly discussed within the author’s note, further proving that this was not an intentional slight on women. Alex Myers is an author, they are telling a story and that story takes place in the 13th century when, unfortunately, women were depicted like this. The main despicable action by a woman is essential to stay true to the poem. Was it frustrating as a female reader? Sometimes. But are there an equal number of ugly characteristics shown in the male characters? Absolutely!
The Story of Silence is a slow-burning tale which steadily unfurls into a captivating narrative which will stay with the reader long after the final page. The original 13th century poem captures the concept of gender so beautifully but Alex Myers takes this even further, handling Silence’s journey with love and compassion. I feel very lucky to have read this.
Silence is born a girl, but due to the laws of inheritance is raised a boy, with only 3 people knowing their true gender (one of whom, initially, is not Silence). The Story of Silence follows Silence from birth, showing their struggles between Nature and Nurture in the medieval period.
The writing style of this fantasy novel is remarkable, with an almost lyrical, ballad quality to it. The settings of Cornwall, and later Brittany, are described in such a way that captivates the reader, transporting them to the jousting fields, the towering castles and the courts of Earls and Kings.
The writing is at a slower pace, a literary journey rather than a sprint and for that reason I didn’t quite get the feeling of “I can’t put this down”, particularly in the middle of the novel. However, the twists and turns in Silence’s life were always quick to pull me back in.
As a character, the reader loves Silence from the very beginning. None of the struggles of their life are of their own making. Indeed, there are moments within this story where it would have been much simpler to tell the truth but Silence does not, displaying true knightly qualities of courage and loyalty. If I had one criticism of this book it is that, after his first “courses”, Silence doesn’t seem to find disguising his Nature very difficult., Yes, he binds his chest but he also travels on the road with male companions for years with no further mention of the more natural signs of his true nature.
The cast of characters surrounding Silence are also excellent, we have the troubled Earl Cador who, despite his original plan, it seems cannot love his child as he should; Griselle and the seneschal who do love and care for Silence and then there is Merlin.
Now, I know Silence should be my favourite character but Merlin stole the show in my opinion! There is no stoical wizard in Myers’ world, oh no! Merlin is a naked, disgusting old man who has an awful habit of laughing out loud at the unseen futures of those he passes. I also appreciated how Merlin wasn’t a solution to Silence’s problems (in fact the opposite is true!). Despite the magical undercurrent within this story, Merlin doesn’t fix everything with the flick of a magic wand – conversely he forces Silence to look inside and solve their own riddle, emphasising that you do not need to fit into one category or another, you can be both, you can be what you decide to be.
It should also be noted that, up to this point in the novel, Silence is referred to with the male pronoun, as that is how he sees himself. He is a boy. He is a knight! However, on processing Merlin’s world this pronoun notably changes to they and their. A beautiful detail that resonated how Silence had accepted their true identity.
The characterisation of women in The Story of Silence is something that has been picked up on a lot by my fellow reviewers and yes, the women in this book are often sex-crazed, deceitful, disloyal creatures. This is also an issue that is directly discussed within the author’s note, further proving that this was not an intentional slight on women. Alex Myers is an author, they are telling a story and that story takes place in the 13th century when, unfortunately, women were depicted like this. The main despicable action by a woman is essential to stay true to the poem. Was it frustrating as a female reader? Sometimes. But are there an equal number of ugly characteristics shown in the male characters? Absolutely!
The Story of Silence is a slow-burning tale which steadily unfurls into a captivating narrative which will stay with the reader long after the final page. The original 13th century poem captures the concept of gender so beautifully but Alex Myers takes this even further, handling Silence’s journey with love and compassion. I feel very lucky to have read this.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Simon Spier keeps a huge secret from his family, his friends, and all of his classmates: he's gay. When that secret is threatened, Simon must face everyone and come to terms with his identity.
I had been looking forward to this one, book adaptation... of course I was going to be... so getting this as our secret screening was fun great. But it really divided the pack and there was much discussion online about it after. But not so much about the film. I'm going to get the grumpy portion of this out of the way first.
I think this is only the second secret screening I've been to. The first one was Molly's Game, which again, was one I'd been looking forward to seeing, and when the card came up at the beginning I think only one person left. It certainly wasn't many. The card comes up for this one... well, it was like a mass exodus. Without the film even rolling I think we lost about half a dozen people. After the first couple of minutes we lost another load. It was that second lot that made me lose faith in humanity a little, because it wasn't more than seconds after Simon says that he's gay that I heard disapproving noises and footsteps trotting out of seats.
Most people online said the same thing about their cinemas. And I know that you don't have to watch every film ever made. But don't just turn your nose up at it because (and here's me being optimistic) it's a young adult film/novel. If you turned your nose up at it because its main character is gay... well... welcome to the real world, they're here, they're queer, and they're here to stay.
I was pleased to see that lots of people gave it a chance, and many seemed to enjoy it. There was a lot of hate for it from others though, and honestly, when you read the comments for it... well, just don't read the comments. For every good there is a bad, but most of the bad either just walked out or don't really give much in the way of a genuine excuse. Several feel like they're being cheated by Cineworld for showing things that aren't blockbusters... people... this isn't how these things work. Trust me, the company comes to the middle man who presents it to the consumer. Business 101. Companies know that you're going to pay to see their big blockbusters and buy their merchandise... why would they give it to you for free? (Yes I know we all have Unlimited cards and essentially get them for free, but you get my meaning.) There's already hype around them, they don't need more. Anyway, away from my rant.
Love, Simon was a wonderful film, and despite what some are saying, (sorry, swerving into rant territory there again) it was laugh out loud funny... and everyone was laughing. Except those people who left without giving it a chance... wow, sorry, I just can't let this go.
If you haven't quite forgotten your teenage years you'll see lots of bits in this that really ring a bell. Those awkward moments, the crushes, the annoying teachers, the pain. If you've experienced any of them then there will be bits that you physically react to. You can feel the emotions that are running around the characters, you know the decisions they're making are good, bad and terrible, and you can almost see the future. As the story unfolds you really do get pulled along with Simon. You feel his pain and you feel his joy.
A genuine smile inducing film. I think you can see my favourite bit in one of the trailers... straight people not having to come out... it honestly cracked me up.
Of course the book is in the TBR, I'll get round to it eventually. But regardless of how it stacks up next to the book is was a wonderful film. You can only hope that it is enlightening to some that watch it, and helpful to others.
I had been looking forward to this one, book adaptation... of course I was going to be... so getting this as our secret screening was fun great. But it really divided the pack and there was much discussion online about it after. But not so much about the film. I'm going to get the grumpy portion of this out of the way first.
I think this is only the second secret screening I've been to. The first one was Molly's Game, which again, was one I'd been looking forward to seeing, and when the card came up at the beginning I think only one person left. It certainly wasn't many. The card comes up for this one... well, it was like a mass exodus. Without the film even rolling I think we lost about half a dozen people. After the first couple of minutes we lost another load. It was that second lot that made me lose faith in humanity a little, because it wasn't more than seconds after Simon says that he's gay that I heard disapproving noises and footsteps trotting out of seats.
Most people online said the same thing about their cinemas. And I know that you don't have to watch every film ever made. But don't just turn your nose up at it because (and here's me being optimistic) it's a young adult film/novel. If you turned your nose up at it because its main character is gay... well... welcome to the real world, they're here, they're queer, and they're here to stay.
I was pleased to see that lots of people gave it a chance, and many seemed to enjoy it. There was a lot of hate for it from others though, and honestly, when you read the comments for it... well, just don't read the comments. For every good there is a bad, but most of the bad either just walked out or don't really give much in the way of a genuine excuse. Several feel like they're being cheated by Cineworld for showing things that aren't blockbusters... people... this isn't how these things work. Trust me, the company comes to the middle man who presents it to the consumer. Business 101. Companies know that you're going to pay to see their big blockbusters and buy their merchandise... why would they give it to you for free? (Yes I know we all have Unlimited cards and essentially get them for free, but you get my meaning.) There's already hype around them, they don't need more. Anyway, away from my rant.
Love, Simon was a wonderful film, and despite what some are saying, (sorry, swerving into rant territory there again) it was laugh out loud funny... and everyone was laughing. Except those people who left without giving it a chance... wow, sorry, I just can't let this go.
If you haven't quite forgotten your teenage years you'll see lots of bits in this that really ring a bell. Those awkward moments, the crushes, the annoying teachers, the pain. If you've experienced any of them then there will be bits that you physically react to. You can feel the emotions that are running around the characters, you know the decisions they're making are good, bad and terrible, and you can almost see the future. As the story unfolds you really do get pulled along with Simon. You feel his pain and you feel his joy.
A genuine smile inducing film. I think you can see my favourite bit in one of the trailers... straight people not having to come out... it honestly cracked me up.
Of course the book is in the TBR, I'll get round to it eventually. But regardless of how it stacks up next to the book is was a wonderful film. You can only hope that it is enlightening to some that watch it, and helpful to others.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Indecent/Wicked in Books
Jan 18, 2018
I was not expecting this omnibus to be as great as it was. When I requested it, I thought it was just going to be another run of the mill erotic novel. And while there really wasnt anything special about it, I still love it more than I should.
First, I loved the complication of the characters. They each have their story, their dirty little secrets, and what makes them tick. There was nothing glamorous or fairytale like to this story. It showed the ugly side of the relationships along with the good, which was usually the sex. The erotic scenes were pretty spicy, but nothing fantastic. I was reading it more for the story than the erotic factor.
The first story has to do with Lucky and Colin. Lucky has her own inner demons and a past that has messed with her perception of men. Colin is a psychologist who seem to cant turn it off when interacting with Lucky who doesnt want him digging in her brain. It was interesting to see how their relationship developed and how they dealt with each others faults.
The second story concerns Luckys co-worker and friends Renae and Colins best friend Will. Will thinks Renae is a lesbian which is was initially stopped him from chasing her tail. Currently, he is courting someone else, but when Renae makes the first move, Will is certainly not passing up the chance. Will and Renaes relationship is less complicated than Colin and Luckys, but that still doesnt mean they dont have their issues to work through.
This novel was so realistic to me in terms of relationships, the troubles that come with them, and how the couple works through them. It was something refreshingly new, especially since, while they didnt get the happy endings we normal expect from such novels, everything still worked out in the end.
First, I loved the complication of the characters. They each have their story, their dirty little secrets, and what makes them tick. There was nothing glamorous or fairytale like to this story. It showed the ugly side of the relationships along with the good, which was usually the sex. The erotic scenes were pretty spicy, but nothing fantastic. I was reading it more for the story than the erotic factor.
The first story has to do with Lucky and Colin. Lucky has her own inner demons and a past that has messed with her perception of men. Colin is a psychologist who seem to cant turn it off when interacting with Lucky who doesnt want him digging in her brain. It was interesting to see how their relationship developed and how they dealt with each others faults.
The second story concerns Luckys co-worker and friends Renae and Colins best friend Will. Will thinks Renae is a lesbian which is was initially stopped him from chasing her tail. Currently, he is courting someone else, but when Renae makes the first move, Will is certainly not passing up the chance. Will and Renaes relationship is less complicated than Colin and Luckys, but that still doesnt mean they dont have their issues to work through.
This novel was so realistic to me in terms of relationships, the troubles that come with them, and how the couple works through them. It was something refreshingly new, especially since, while they didnt get the happy endings we normal expect from such novels, everything still worked out in the end.
Merissa (13878 KP) rated The Princess: Tales of Kelnore (Royals #1) in Books
Jan 17, 2025
THE PRINCESS is the first book in The Tales of Kelnore and from the very beginning, it is clear in so many ways that this is NOT Pern Coen!!!
Told from multiple perspectives, we focus on Aurelia, Luca, Dimitri, and Fabian. Each of them has a story to tell and secrets to keep, it's just some are clearer than others at this moment. There are so many wars going on in this book, whether it's against raiders, magic, themselves, or even husbands. Every part was brilliantly written and left me not wanting it to end.
Poor Aurelia! How dare she ask questions or have an opinion, let alone eat a full portion. Yeesh, I really dislike Kelnore and their way of thinking. #SorryNotSorry. Fabian is the heir to the empire, knowing his duty is to do what his father tells him, including who he will marry. Dimitri is Aurelia's twin brother who is a little more lenient with her but doesn't fully understand her. Luca is a Captain under Dimitri's command. Dimitri has taken him under his wing, even though Luca has a secret that could get him executed if found out.
I love this world that Ms Carey has written. I will be honest and say I prefer the values of Pern Coen, but that just makes this story so much more interesting. To be able to compare one land with another while being completely engrossed in the personal lives of the characters is wonderful. I could waffle on longer as there are many things I haven't touched upon, but instead, I will simply say this is an outstanding book that I was completely hooked on and HIGHLY RECOMMEND.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jan 12, 2025
Told from multiple perspectives, we focus on Aurelia, Luca, Dimitri, and Fabian. Each of them has a story to tell and secrets to keep, it's just some are clearer than others at this moment. There are so many wars going on in this book, whether it's against raiders, magic, themselves, or even husbands. Every part was brilliantly written and left me not wanting it to end.
Poor Aurelia! How dare she ask questions or have an opinion, let alone eat a full portion. Yeesh, I really dislike Kelnore and their way of thinking. #SorryNotSorry. Fabian is the heir to the empire, knowing his duty is to do what his father tells him, including who he will marry. Dimitri is Aurelia's twin brother who is a little more lenient with her but doesn't fully understand her. Luca is a Captain under Dimitri's command. Dimitri has taken him under his wing, even though Luca has a secret that could get him executed if found out.
I love this world that Ms Carey has written. I will be honest and say I prefer the values of Pern Coen, but that just makes this story so much more interesting. To be able to compare one land with another while being completely engrossed in the personal lives of the characters is wonderful. I could waffle on longer as there are many things I haven't touched upon, but instead, I will simply say this is an outstanding book that I was completely hooked on and HIGHLY RECOMMEND.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jan 12, 2025
Darren (1599 KP) rated Eight Legged Freaks (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: Eight Legged Freaks starts by showing us the Mike Parker (Terra) visiting Joshua the spider expert of the town who has been feeding his spiders enlarged crickets and of course they now escape. One week later when Mike goes to return his mother Sheriff Samantha Parker (Wuhrer) stops the visit because of waste being dumped into the local watering hole.
With this we get to see the rebellious teenage daughter Ashley (Johansson) who is dating bad boy biker Bret (Czuchry) step-son of Mayor Wade (Rippy) who is trying to cover up the fact the town is nearly broke. Chris McCormick (Arquette) a local who returned to town after his father’s death refusing to sell the mine in a deal which could save the town.
When Mike makes it back to Joshua’s he learns of the super-sized spiders that have been released into this small town, the resident must now fight against the spiders that have infested the town.
Thoughts on Eight Legged Freaks
Characters/Performance – Chris McCormick returns to his hometown to claim what is his, the mine, he also needs to make up for the mistakes he has made and this gives him the perfect chance too. Sheriff Parker is a single mother of two trying to keep the local community together and being the former love interest of Chris. Mike is the expert on everything going on playing out as the reminder to all the different spiders attacking styles. Ashley is the bad girl daughter of Samantha who is mostly trying to discover who she is. We have the rest of the town which includes the conspiracy crazed radio host, the greedy mayor the comic relief deputy.
Performance wise, David Arquette is great in this leading role managing the comedy side of everything as well as the action horror when needed. Kari Wuhrer fits the part of sexy sheriff very well too. Both Scott Terra and Scarlett Johansson are good choices too. The rest of the actors all give good performances to fit the films mentality.
Story – Small town gets invaded by giant spiders thanks to cost cutting measures. We do have a reluctantly hero needing to help save the day but otherwise this is everything you need in a creature feature, plenty of potential victims, plenty of creature and plenty of laughs.
Action/Comedy/Horror – The action is all big and plans into the idea of the comedy being used in the creature feature side of the film.
Settings – The small town setting helps with the story telling here because they have no communication with the outside world after the attack starts and not many escape routes of places to hide.
Special Effects – We have a mix of practical and CGI here which all help create the low budget feel behind this film and while moments have dated other parts are all fun.
Final Thoughts – This is by far one of my favourite creature features out there, it is fun, over the top and filled with perfect comic timing, never trying to be serious.
Overall: Purely fun creature feature.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/10/27/a-z-halloween-horror-eight-legged-freaks-2002/
With this we get to see the rebellious teenage daughter Ashley (Johansson) who is dating bad boy biker Bret (Czuchry) step-son of Mayor Wade (Rippy) who is trying to cover up the fact the town is nearly broke. Chris McCormick (Arquette) a local who returned to town after his father’s death refusing to sell the mine in a deal which could save the town.
When Mike makes it back to Joshua’s he learns of the super-sized spiders that have been released into this small town, the resident must now fight against the spiders that have infested the town.
Thoughts on Eight Legged Freaks
Characters/Performance – Chris McCormick returns to his hometown to claim what is his, the mine, he also needs to make up for the mistakes he has made and this gives him the perfect chance too. Sheriff Parker is a single mother of two trying to keep the local community together and being the former love interest of Chris. Mike is the expert on everything going on playing out as the reminder to all the different spiders attacking styles. Ashley is the bad girl daughter of Samantha who is mostly trying to discover who she is. We have the rest of the town which includes the conspiracy crazed radio host, the greedy mayor the comic relief deputy.
Performance wise, David Arquette is great in this leading role managing the comedy side of everything as well as the action horror when needed. Kari Wuhrer fits the part of sexy sheriff very well too. Both Scott Terra and Scarlett Johansson are good choices too. The rest of the actors all give good performances to fit the films mentality.
Story – Small town gets invaded by giant spiders thanks to cost cutting measures. We do have a reluctantly hero needing to help save the day but otherwise this is everything you need in a creature feature, plenty of potential victims, plenty of creature and plenty of laughs.
Action/Comedy/Horror – The action is all big and plans into the idea of the comedy being used in the creature feature side of the film.
Settings – The small town setting helps with the story telling here because they have no communication with the outside world after the attack starts and not many escape routes of places to hide.
Special Effects – We have a mix of practical and CGI here which all help create the low budget feel behind this film and while moments have dated other parts are all fun.
Final Thoughts – This is by far one of my favourite creature features out there, it is fun, over the top and filled with perfect comic timing, never trying to be serious.
Overall: Purely fun creature feature.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/10/27/a-z-halloween-horror-eight-legged-freaks-2002/