Search
Search results
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My One and Only in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I loved Kristin Higgins' last release, All I Ever Wanted. I loved that it was a good romance with good characters and no explicit sex scenes. I loved the dogs. I loved the quirks. I loved the family, I loved everything about it. I was psyched to get her new release.
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Knack in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Launch titles are often subject to some very harsh scrutiny by gamers and the new Playstation 4 game Knack is just one such example. The game was created by Sony’s Japan Studio to be a launch title for the new system and in an ironic twist, is not schedule to release in Japan until late Feb 2014.
Players play as Knack, a shape changing creation that was created by a professor using powerful and ancient relics. The relics are used as power in the societies of the world and when the Goblin race breaks a longstanding truce with new and powerful weapons of war, humanity finds itself needed to answer the threat.
A wealthy industrialist named Victor wants to use his army of robots to answer the Goblin threat but the Doctor who created Knack convinces the leaders that his creation is a more capable solution to the problem and as such is assigned to investigate and resolve the Goblin threat.
The game is divided into chapters and sub chapters and playing as Knack players must travel through caves, temples, fortresses, and other locales in missions which combine platform jumping, fighting, and puzzle solving. Players can locate hidden objects that when combined offer power ups such a relic finder and many other options that will help with the completion of the game.
Knack grows and regains health when relics are found and in time will learn how to add rocks, ice, and other substances to his matrix which in turn will allow him to be gigantic in nature for some of the games bigger battles. I will admit to taking some fiendish delight in swatting aside smaller enemies like gnats when I was able to bulk Knack up to a massive size. The game limits when Knack can reach gargantuan size as it keeps his scale in check with what the level requirements are.
There are also sun crystals that Knack can obtain which will allow him to unleash some super moves. Players can store up to three such power ups and once used, several crystals are needed to replenish what was used.
While the gameplay is fairly basic in that jumping, fighting, climbing, and avoiding enemy attacks there is some frustration with the at times repetitive nature of the levels and in game combat. While fun, it at times became boring as the game went along and it was also hampered by some of the camera angles in games that often made me resort to trial and error. This is frustrating as the game uses a checkpoint save and respawn system as once I was able to get through a tricky part of the game, I went over a cliff and had to replay a large portion of the game. This was frustrating as the camera only gave me an over the shoulder view and I could not see how much space was ahead of me. Other chapters cut to a cut scene in a similar situation but this one required me to inch forwards carefully to trigger the cutscene.
While the game does allow you to continue if you quit, I find myself having to re-watch tons of animation and replay several early stages of a level to get back to where I left off.
While the voice acting and story are nothing special the game is fun to play for what it is and I did enjoy several parts of the game despite the frustrations I mentioned earlier. The graphics are solid and while not showcases for the power of the system provide an interesting and engaging setting for the game and the numerous enemies and traps players will face.
The game has received some negative press to date which I think is highly unfair. Many people in my opinion are judging the game for what it was not rather than what it was. While it could have been a better game, it is a fun and enjoyable game for those who have more moderate expectations and would be ideal for younger players who are looking for something to play on the Playstation 4 that is age appropriate.
http://sknr.net/2014/01/26/knack/
Players play as Knack, a shape changing creation that was created by a professor using powerful and ancient relics. The relics are used as power in the societies of the world and when the Goblin race breaks a longstanding truce with new and powerful weapons of war, humanity finds itself needed to answer the threat.
A wealthy industrialist named Victor wants to use his army of robots to answer the Goblin threat but the Doctor who created Knack convinces the leaders that his creation is a more capable solution to the problem and as such is assigned to investigate and resolve the Goblin threat.
The game is divided into chapters and sub chapters and playing as Knack players must travel through caves, temples, fortresses, and other locales in missions which combine platform jumping, fighting, and puzzle solving. Players can locate hidden objects that when combined offer power ups such a relic finder and many other options that will help with the completion of the game.
Knack grows and regains health when relics are found and in time will learn how to add rocks, ice, and other substances to his matrix which in turn will allow him to be gigantic in nature for some of the games bigger battles. I will admit to taking some fiendish delight in swatting aside smaller enemies like gnats when I was able to bulk Knack up to a massive size. The game limits when Knack can reach gargantuan size as it keeps his scale in check with what the level requirements are.
There are also sun crystals that Knack can obtain which will allow him to unleash some super moves. Players can store up to three such power ups and once used, several crystals are needed to replenish what was used.
While the gameplay is fairly basic in that jumping, fighting, climbing, and avoiding enemy attacks there is some frustration with the at times repetitive nature of the levels and in game combat. While fun, it at times became boring as the game went along and it was also hampered by some of the camera angles in games that often made me resort to trial and error. This is frustrating as the game uses a checkpoint save and respawn system as once I was able to get through a tricky part of the game, I went over a cliff and had to replay a large portion of the game. This was frustrating as the camera only gave me an over the shoulder view and I could not see how much space was ahead of me. Other chapters cut to a cut scene in a similar situation but this one required me to inch forwards carefully to trigger the cutscene.
While the game does allow you to continue if you quit, I find myself having to re-watch tons of animation and replay several early stages of a level to get back to where I left off.
While the voice acting and story are nothing special the game is fun to play for what it is and I did enjoy several parts of the game despite the frustrations I mentioned earlier. The graphics are solid and while not showcases for the power of the system provide an interesting and engaging setting for the game and the numerous enemies and traps players will face.
The game has received some negative press to date which I think is highly unfair. Many people in my opinion are judging the game for what it was not rather than what it was. While it could have been a better game, it is a fun and enjoyable game for those who have more moderate expectations and would be ideal for younger players who are looking for something to play on the Playstation 4 that is age appropriate.
http://sknr.net/2014/01/26/knack/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Feb 11, 2021
The rule of threes is a pretty solid philosophy. We find things repeated in triplicate satisfying and complete. There is no rule of four, it isn’t a thing. Four is usually one too many… and this was the fear for all Pixar and Toy Story fans when this project was announced, fairly unexpectedly, in 2018. Toy Story 3 was a beautiful and heart-rending end to the saga of Woody, Buzz and co. It was an end. Wasn’t it? Everything worth saying had been said, and it was all tied up in a plastic bow rather perfectly.
Well, Pixar are innovators and pioneers of the highest order, so maybe we should just trust that they know what they are doing (apart from the Cars series). Please don’t ruin it all, is all we asked, with fingers crossed. So many franchises and beloved event movies have had their legacy shat on by one too many sequels. Die Hard, Alien, Star Wars, The Terminator, etc, etc. Isn’t it best to leave well alone and concentrate on new ideas and new directions?
All the usual voice actors, Mr Hanks and Mr Allen, were back on board, with some intriguing additions in guest stars such as Christina Hendricks and Keanu Reeves, as Gabby Gabby and Duke Caboom, respectively. There was also a new director in Josh Cooley, who had been part of the team since story boarding The Incredibles in 2003, and graduating to writer and actor on Inside Out. It’s good to know Pixar look after their own with these kind of opportunities, but was this the right film and series to be making a debut in? A lot of pressure, you would think.
So, firstly, by now we know the entire world breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t terrible. Not only wasn’t it terrible, but it was a heck of a lot of fun! I mean, a lot! It went on to win the Oscar for best animated film, and everyone that went on to watch it after its cinema release unanimously says: “Hey, this is much better than I thought… maybe even my second favourite out of the four”. And it is true! It’s not just good enough, it is great. I loved it.
I tend to save my animation for Sundays. I don’t know why, but that feels like the best day to indulge my inner child and sense of sentimental wonder. From minute one I was into this film. As soon as you see and hear your old friends in the toy box, it doesn’t take long to feel at home in this world of talking, walking, feeling, fearing, loving characters. They are so well drawn, in all senses, it is hard to think of animated entities so adored and part of the family. I laughed, I cried, I felt excited and worried and tense and ultimately warmed up with joy. It has it all.
Not to say it merely repeats the best tricks of the first three, it doesn’t. In fact, there are a lot of differences here. It feels a little more mature, like we have all grown up together and have no need to be patronised or expositioned at. It assumes we know these people (yes, I think of them as people, that is why it works) and can leap into their lives at any point. Woody, who is of course the beating heart of the show, has been a friend, a paramour and brother before, but now he is a father figure too, an evolution that reflects life. And these guys know how effective that is going to be.
There is a slight concern regarding his adopted ward, the controversial “Forky”, who seemed a little childish and simplistic in theory… but that becomes a wonderful part of the whole point… no spoilers. I’d understand if the character grated a tiny touch at first; it kinda did with me. But the laughs are there eventually, and some of them are big laughs! Fear not, it works. Not perfect, but it works. Although why it isn’t called “Sporky” I do not know… it is clearly a spork and not a fork. Oh, yes, I know why, it is because that is what Bonnie calls him, and she is a child. Genius. I was wrong.
The plot, such as it is, is an adventure story worthy of Indiana Jones at points, and it moves along at an exciting clip for sure! Gabby Gabby is gloriously sinister, as are her ventriloquist dummy henchmen; Duke Caboom is hilarious and has probably the best light relief moments; but there is also the duo of “Ducky” and “Bunny” to enjoy on a more surreal and perhaps more adult level. Even when you see where it is going, it has the ability to surprise you, which is terrific film-making art in any animation, or anything full stop. Not least, the final 10 minutes, which break the heart in the best way, just as all the previous films have done. The thought of where they leave it brings a lump to my throat even now!
In short. If you haven’t seen it: do. If you have, watch it again as part of a Toy Story marathon and see exactly how different it is from start to finish, and just how many themes and ideas it has covered in its 25 year existence. Bravo Pixar, you did it again!
Well, Pixar are innovators and pioneers of the highest order, so maybe we should just trust that they know what they are doing (apart from the Cars series). Please don’t ruin it all, is all we asked, with fingers crossed. So many franchises and beloved event movies have had their legacy shat on by one too many sequels. Die Hard, Alien, Star Wars, The Terminator, etc, etc. Isn’t it best to leave well alone and concentrate on new ideas and new directions?
All the usual voice actors, Mr Hanks and Mr Allen, were back on board, with some intriguing additions in guest stars such as Christina Hendricks and Keanu Reeves, as Gabby Gabby and Duke Caboom, respectively. There was also a new director in Josh Cooley, who had been part of the team since story boarding The Incredibles in 2003, and graduating to writer and actor on Inside Out. It’s good to know Pixar look after their own with these kind of opportunities, but was this the right film and series to be making a debut in? A lot of pressure, you would think.
So, firstly, by now we know the entire world breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t terrible. Not only wasn’t it terrible, but it was a heck of a lot of fun! I mean, a lot! It went on to win the Oscar for best animated film, and everyone that went on to watch it after its cinema release unanimously says: “Hey, this is much better than I thought… maybe even my second favourite out of the four”. And it is true! It’s not just good enough, it is great. I loved it.
I tend to save my animation for Sundays. I don’t know why, but that feels like the best day to indulge my inner child and sense of sentimental wonder. From minute one I was into this film. As soon as you see and hear your old friends in the toy box, it doesn’t take long to feel at home in this world of talking, walking, feeling, fearing, loving characters. They are so well drawn, in all senses, it is hard to think of animated entities so adored and part of the family. I laughed, I cried, I felt excited and worried and tense and ultimately warmed up with joy. It has it all.
Not to say it merely repeats the best tricks of the first three, it doesn’t. In fact, there are a lot of differences here. It feels a little more mature, like we have all grown up together and have no need to be patronised or expositioned at. It assumes we know these people (yes, I think of them as people, that is why it works) and can leap into their lives at any point. Woody, who is of course the beating heart of the show, has been a friend, a paramour and brother before, but now he is a father figure too, an evolution that reflects life. And these guys know how effective that is going to be.
There is a slight concern regarding his adopted ward, the controversial “Forky”, who seemed a little childish and simplistic in theory… but that becomes a wonderful part of the whole point… no spoilers. I’d understand if the character grated a tiny touch at first; it kinda did with me. But the laughs are there eventually, and some of them are big laughs! Fear not, it works. Not perfect, but it works. Although why it isn’t called “Sporky” I do not know… it is clearly a spork and not a fork. Oh, yes, I know why, it is because that is what Bonnie calls him, and she is a child. Genius. I was wrong.
The plot, such as it is, is an adventure story worthy of Indiana Jones at points, and it moves along at an exciting clip for sure! Gabby Gabby is gloriously sinister, as are her ventriloquist dummy henchmen; Duke Caboom is hilarious and has probably the best light relief moments; but there is also the duo of “Ducky” and “Bunny” to enjoy on a more surreal and perhaps more adult level. Even when you see where it is going, it has the ability to surprise you, which is terrific film-making art in any animation, or anything full stop. Not least, the final 10 minutes, which break the heart in the best way, just as all the previous films have done. The thought of where they leave it brings a lump to my throat even now!
In short. If you haven’t seen it: do. If you have, watch it again as part of a Toy Story marathon and see exactly how different it is from start to finish, and just how many themes and ideas it has covered in its 25 year existence. Bravo Pixar, you did it again!
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Terrible Candidates in Tabletop Games
Aug 28, 2020
2020 is a year that will definitely go down in the history books for many reasons. Amidst a global pandemic, a growing civil rights movement, and a hurricane-like storm that ravaged the state of Iowa on August 10th, we ALSO find ourselves in an election year. As if things couldn’t get any crazier, right? Get in the campaigning mood by checking out Terrible Candidates, and remember to get out and vote on November 3rd, America!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ouija: Origin of Evil (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
As a huge fan of supernatural horror films I was really looking forward to screening Ouija: Origins of Evil. I had hoped that this film would make up to it’s unsuccessful predecessor. I think the last big box horror movie that I thoroughly enjoyed was The Conjuring 2. I can’t say that I was surprised with being a little disappointed with this film.
As always, some of the best scenes in any film are usually displayed in the trailer to reel us in and that’s precisely what happened.
The film is based in 1965 with a young widowed mother Alice (Elizabeth Reaser) raising two daughters Paulina and Doris. Alice and the girls use old school seance scams to make ends meet.
The somewhat rebellious teen daughter Paulina sneaks out to a party where a Ouija board is used and suggests that her mother should buy one and add it to the act. Her mother decides that it just might be what they need to liven up the show. Thinking that this would only be one of her many parlor tricks she buys one.
While setting up the board for a practice session she decides to see if it might actually work. She doesn’t realize that she has now opened a can of worms and her youngest daughter Doris is in the throws of a malevolent force.
Is it the board, is it the house, is it their father. With the help of their school priest they are able to understand what is truly happening.
The film in a whole was just okay, not the best but not the worst either. The problem that I had with it specifically was how long you have to get through to get to the scary parts of the film. I was hopeful that it would get better and to my surprise it did.
Yes the lines weren’t great but the cast seemed fitting for their characters. Elizabeth Reaser who I’ve had the pleasure of meeting was perfect as Alice and the young girls as well. I don’t usually go on about editing and lighting but I must say that I really enjoyed the cinematography in the film. The drab colors and filming techniques were very well executed and added to the 60’s style horror films of the past.
In all honesty I would recommend seeing this in theaters. With the energy of the audience and darkness of the theater it makes for a fun and spooky Halloween event.
Just be aware that the build up to the better scenes is long and drawn out. The jump scares are few and far between however it still is worth a watch.
As always, some of the best scenes in any film are usually displayed in the trailer to reel us in and that’s precisely what happened.
The film is based in 1965 with a young widowed mother Alice (Elizabeth Reaser) raising two daughters Paulina and Doris. Alice and the girls use old school seance scams to make ends meet.
The somewhat rebellious teen daughter Paulina sneaks out to a party where a Ouija board is used and suggests that her mother should buy one and add it to the act. Her mother decides that it just might be what they need to liven up the show. Thinking that this would only be one of her many parlor tricks she buys one.
While setting up the board for a practice session she decides to see if it might actually work. She doesn’t realize that she has now opened a can of worms and her youngest daughter Doris is in the throws of a malevolent force.
Is it the board, is it the house, is it their father. With the help of their school priest they are able to understand what is truly happening.
The film in a whole was just okay, not the best but not the worst either. The problem that I had with it specifically was how long you have to get through to get to the scary parts of the film. I was hopeful that it would get better and to my surprise it did.
Yes the lines weren’t great but the cast seemed fitting for their characters. Elizabeth Reaser who I’ve had the pleasure of meeting was perfect as Alice and the young girls as well. I don’t usually go on about editing and lighting but I must say that I really enjoyed the cinematography in the film. The drab colors and filming techniques were very well executed and added to the 60’s style horror films of the past.
In all honesty I would recommend seeing this in theaters. With the energy of the audience and darkness of the theater it makes for a fun and spooky Halloween event.
Just be aware that the build up to the better scenes is long and drawn out. The jump scares are few and far between however it still is worth a watch.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Art of Racing in the Rain (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Another crying dog movie... just what my life needs.
Denny picks up a golden retriever puppy from a farm and the two become firm friends. Enzo learns all about racing and is a constant fixture at the track, it's going to be the two of them forever feeling the wind in their faces.
Then one day Eve comes along, she's there a lot and it doesn't look like she's leaving. Can Enzo adapt to family life?
The card on the film states "scenes of emotional upset"... accurate, and right from the very start too. This was made by a savage person. Originally I had a quadruple bill planned but I wasn't sure I could do this film followed by The Sun Is Also A Star and come out the other end as anything but a gibbering wreck so I split it out. That was probably one of the most sensible things I've ever done, there was so much crying.
The way they show Enzo reacting to everything is spot on. If you've watched those dog videos on Facebook where they subtitle in what the dog's thinking, it's just like that but Enzo has a much better grasp of the English language and the sultry tones of Kevin Costner. Some of the moments are wonderful and it made me wonder if my dog did any of them, and then I cried a bit more.
Milo Ventimiglia plays out leading human, Denny, and he's very convincing with the obsession Denny has for racing. The flipside with the struggle of having to be a dad came across too and there are some poignant scenes that came off beautifully.
I wasn't overly engaged with Amanda Seyfried as Eve until the midpoint of the film. Perhaps I was indifferent about her on Enzo's behalf, we may never know, but at the point where it all turned I thought she gave a wonderful and respectful performance.
There's not a huge extended cast, but it's filled with talented actors who bring something great to their characters, Kathy Baker and Martin Donovan were particularly good as Eve's parents, though you can't help but hate them.
It's nicely done overall, nothing seems out of place, there weren't any frivolous scenes. The way we get to engage with the racing is brilliantly executed, especially the scene at the beginning where he actually races in the rain, very exciting to watch. It's a lovely crying dog film (at what point do we declare this an actual genre?), is it predictable? Yes, but it's still a nice easy watch if you've got a box of tissues handy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-art-of-racing-in-rain-movie-review.html
Denny picks up a golden retriever puppy from a farm and the two become firm friends. Enzo learns all about racing and is a constant fixture at the track, it's going to be the two of them forever feeling the wind in their faces.
Then one day Eve comes along, she's there a lot and it doesn't look like she's leaving. Can Enzo adapt to family life?
The card on the film states "scenes of emotional upset"... accurate, and right from the very start too. This was made by a savage person. Originally I had a quadruple bill planned but I wasn't sure I could do this film followed by The Sun Is Also A Star and come out the other end as anything but a gibbering wreck so I split it out. That was probably one of the most sensible things I've ever done, there was so much crying.
The way they show Enzo reacting to everything is spot on. If you've watched those dog videos on Facebook where they subtitle in what the dog's thinking, it's just like that but Enzo has a much better grasp of the English language and the sultry tones of Kevin Costner. Some of the moments are wonderful and it made me wonder if my dog did any of them, and then I cried a bit more.
Milo Ventimiglia plays out leading human, Denny, and he's very convincing with the obsession Denny has for racing. The flipside with the struggle of having to be a dad came across too and there are some poignant scenes that came off beautifully.
I wasn't overly engaged with Amanda Seyfried as Eve until the midpoint of the film. Perhaps I was indifferent about her on Enzo's behalf, we may never know, but at the point where it all turned I thought she gave a wonderful and respectful performance.
There's not a huge extended cast, but it's filled with talented actors who bring something great to their characters, Kathy Baker and Martin Donovan were particularly good as Eve's parents, though you can't help but hate them.
It's nicely done overall, nothing seems out of place, there weren't any frivolous scenes. The way we get to engage with the racing is brilliantly executed, especially the scene at the beginning where he actually races in the rain, very exciting to watch. It's a lovely crying dog film (at what point do we declare this an actual genre?), is it predictable? Yes, but it's still a nice easy watch if you've got a box of tissues handy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-art-of-racing-in-rain-movie-review.html
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 4, 2021
The Suicide Squad is a (possible) reboot that may or may not follow on from Suicide Squad and (or only) Birds of Prey. Honestly I'm not sure that even DC knows what's going on with their movie time line. Anyway, Margot Robbie and Joel Kinnamen return as Harley Quinn and Rick Flagg to lead another team of criminal misfits on an impossible mission (or, if it's a reboot like James Gunn says then it's the first time they are together and we ignore that Flagg askes Harley why she's back in prison or that Waller's team are checking who has worked with who). This time task force X are sent to the island of Corto Maltese to find and destroy 'Project Starfish'.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
BookInspector (124 KP) rated The Other Side of the Street in Books
Sep 24, 2020
This was a first H. Carey’s book which I read, and definitely not the last one. This novel is fifth in Lavender Road series, and I will read rest of them as soon as will be able to.
In the blurb, Carey highlights two characters – Louise and Jen, but they are not the only ones this book is about. There a lot of characters to choose from, and all of them are incredibly appealing, charismatic, and you need all of them, in order to enjoy this story. I absolutely loved how the author included every single of them in this novel, not leaving out any. I couldn’t decide which one I loved the most, they all have their strengths and qualities, which made this book richer, more interesting and relatable. Another thing which I absolutely loved, was multiple perspectives. I really enjoyed reading, how different characters reacted to some of the situations. I loved getting to know every single character, their problems and achievements, I think that’s why this book simply absorbed me. It was like watching a TV series unfold throughout the pages.
It is quite hard for me to describe the narrative of this book. Through different perspectives, there were a lot of life stories unfolded and told, so the narrative always changed, throwing in different characters feelings and thoughts. Which I found truly fascinating. Carey didn’t leave me bored even for a second, she creatively added turns and twists to the stories, which made me turn page after page. I really liked, that author was addressing difficulties which women were facing during that period, and I enjoyed the way Louise was breaking the stereotypes.
The writing style of this book was very pleasant, easy to read and enjoyable. One thing what I found inconvenient for me was ENSA/ RADA/ ATS etc. I grew up abroad, so I have no idea what they mean, and I am too lazy to google it, so I would have liked a little explanation page at the back, however, not knowing it, didn’t ruin my reading experience at all. The chapters of this book are quite long, but it did not drag to me, because there were a lot of things happening in every chapter, so they flew quite quickly. I really liked the way Carey ended this book, it was unexpected, satisfying, and I will be waiting to find out, what will happen next to all the characters. So, to conclude, I really enjoyed this novel, it has well rounded, exciting, fun characters, and the narrative always keeps changing, that left me hooked and interested till the last page. I really hope Netflix or BBC will make a TV series from Lavender Road books in a near future 🙂
In the blurb, Carey highlights two characters – Louise and Jen, but they are not the only ones this book is about. There a lot of characters to choose from, and all of them are incredibly appealing, charismatic, and you need all of them, in order to enjoy this story. I absolutely loved how the author included every single of them in this novel, not leaving out any. I couldn’t decide which one I loved the most, they all have their strengths and qualities, which made this book richer, more interesting and relatable. Another thing which I absolutely loved, was multiple perspectives. I really enjoyed reading, how different characters reacted to some of the situations. I loved getting to know every single character, their problems and achievements, I think that’s why this book simply absorbed me. It was like watching a TV series unfold throughout the pages.
It is quite hard for me to describe the narrative of this book. Through different perspectives, there were a lot of life stories unfolded and told, so the narrative always changed, throwing in different characters feelings and thoughts. Which I found truly fascinating. Carey didn’t leave me bored even for a second, she creatively added turns and twists to the stories, which made me turn page after page. I really liked, that author was addressing difficulties which women were facing during that period, and I enjoyed the way Louise was breaking the stereotypes.
The writing style of this book was very pleasant, easy to read and enjoyable. One thing what I found inconvenient for me was ENSA/ RADA/ ATS etc. I grew up abroad, so I have no idea what they mean, and I am too lazy to google it, so I would have liked a little explanation page at the back, however, not knowing it, didn’t ruin my reading experience at all. The chapters of this book are quite long, but it did not drag to me, because there were a lot of things happening in every chapter, so they flew quite quickly. I really liked the way Carey ended this book, it was unexpected, satisfying, and I will be waiting to find out, what will happen next to all the characters. So, to conclude, I really enjoyed this novel, it has well rounded, exciting, fun characters, and the narrative always keeps changing, that left me hooked and interested till the last page. I really hope Netflix or BBC will make a TV series from Lavender Road books in a near future 🙂
Debbiereadsbook (1186 KP) rated Thicker Than Water (Redwater Demons #1) in Books
Jul 27, 2024
freaking loved this book!
Independent reviewer for GRR, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This book, right here, is what I love MOST about reviewing. I come across a blurb that I love the sound of, by an author that is new to me, and the book blows me away! I freaking LOVED this book!
Julian is a demon hunter. His latest job finds himself adopted by the demon he was sent to kill. But she's just a little girl, and he cannot. He then finds said toddler kidnapped from him, and a demon contacts him, to share custody! (I'm sorry, but that really did make me chuckle!) But as Cassius and JJ bond over Desi, pieces are being moved on the cheesboard, and it's not very clear who will come out on top.
Like I said, freaking loved this book!
I loved the jump straight in for JJ and Desi. I loved the gentle way we are told about this world and the people and demons in it. The world building is excellent, and I could keep up and follow what was being thrown at me at all times. Cass and JJ have redefined the SLOW BUILD! I love the gradual way the attraction builds between these two. It's slow and subtle, and one of them thinks/says something and its "say what now??" SOme funny moments, too.
It's violent in places. JJ bears the brunt of that but not all is on page. MUCH is implied. I liked that we don't get it all, but we get some clues as to how bad it really was.
While JJ and Cass have a slow build, when we get to the main event?? Totally fade to grey and I freaking LOVED THAT TOO!! I'm big enough to admit, I like my books on the steamy side, and I'm also big enough to admit that not all books nned to be explicit. I loved that this one was not.
Betrayal of the highest order is painful for JJ, but Cass comes to the rescue, in his true form. And I loved that there was no indication that demons in this world had another form! There is some indication who might be next, at the end of this one with a bit of the next book. Actually, it gives you the next TWO books, I hope!
This is a new to me author, at the start of a new series. Two questions I ask myself when I read new authors and starts of series: will I read more by this author?? And will I continue the series. My answers to both questions is a HELL FREAKING YES!!
I can't fault this, I really cannot.
5 full and oh-so shiny stars!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
This book, right here, is what I love MOST about reviewing. I come across a blurb that I love the sound of, by an author that is new to me, and the book blows me away! I freaking LOVED this book!
Julian is a demon hunter. His latest job finds himself adopted by the demon he was sent to kill. But she's just a little girl, and he cannot. He then finds said toddler kidnapped from him, and a demon contacts him, to share custody! (I'm sorry, but that really did make me chuckle!) But as Cassius and JJ bond over Desi, pieces are being moved on the cheesboard, and it's not very clear who will come out on top.
Like I said, freaking loved this book!
I loved the jump straight in for JJ and Desi. I loved the gentle way we are told about this world and the people and demons in it. The world building is excellent, and I could keep up and follow what was being thrown at me at all times. Cass and JJ have redefined the SLOW BUILD! I love the gradual way the attraction builds between these two. It's slow and subtle, and one of them thinks/says something and its "say what now??" SOme funny moments, too.
It's violent in places. JJ bears the brunt of that but not all is on page. MUCH is implied. I liked that we don't get it all, but we get some clues as to how bad it really was.
While JJ and Cass have a slow build, when we get to the main event?? Totally fade to grey and I freaking LOVED THAT TOO!! I'm big enough to admit, I like my books on the steamy side, and I'm also big enough to admit that not all books nned to be explicit. I loved that this one was not.
Betrayal of the highest order is painful for JJ, but Cass comes to the rescue, in his true form. And I loved that there was no indication that demons in this world had another form! There is some indication who might be next, at the end of this one with a bit of the next book. Actually, it gives you the next TWO books, I hope!
This is a new to me author, at the start of a new series. Two questions I ask myself when I read new authors and starts of series: will I read more by this author?? And will I continue the series. My answers to both questions is a HELL FREAKING YES!!
I can't fault this, I really cannot.
5 full and oh-so shiny stars!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere