Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Alpha (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Columbia Pictures new release Alpha stars Kodi Smit-McPhee as Keda, and
Jóhannes Haukur Jóhannesson) as Tau, his father.
Tau is the tribe leader, and must determine whether the young male tribe
members are ready for the annual hunt. He tests all the spear points
crafted by the boys, and passes or fails them based on the craftsmanship
of the arrowheads.
Keda is one of the only two young men that pass the test, and in spite
of his mothers (and his own) reservations, joins the hunt.
Keda isn’t a strong figure, like his father Tau, and the movie shows
some of the tension and strife this causes the father and son. Tau is
trying to teach Keda to be a leader, and Keda seems too soft-hearted to
be able to bear the task. Keda has a hard time with the killing of
animals, even though it is needed to sustain the tribe.
The annual hunt consists of tracking down a herd of bison over a span of
days, and then creeping up on them on their grazing grounds and spooking
them into headlong flight over the edge of a high cliff. The hunters
must keep the herd from turning back to the open plain by throwing their
spears and running full-tilt at the bison. The run to push the bison
over the cliffs edge starts off well, and then takes a tragic turn when
one of the bison turns towards the hunters and charges at Keda. Kedas
confidence breaks and he turns tail to run, with the bison chasing him
down. When the bison lowers his head to charge at Keda, the bisons horn
catches in Kedas clothing and the bison turns towards the cliff face and
dump Keda over the edge.
Keda miraculously lands on a rock outcropping about half way down the
cliff face, but it is still too far for Tau to reach him. Keda is
unconscious, and does not respond to his fathers calls.
Tau is convinced that he must leave his son for dead and head towards
home in order to be able to provide for the tribe.
A day later, Keda wakes and finds himself alone, with broken bones, and
no way to get off the cliff face.
What follows is a story of coming of age and determination. Keda must
find his way off the cliff face, and using the tools given to him by his
father on the way to the bison hunting grounds, find his way home. He
finds unlikely companionship in a wolf that he injured while the wolf
pack was hunting him down to try to eat him, which he nurses back to
health. He names the wolf “Alpha”, but in truth, it is Keda who is
learning to become the alpha, or leader of the pack.
The scenery in the movie is breathtaking, and the movie really comes to
life with the 3D option. I can only imagine that it would be even better
in IMAX.
There were pieces of the film that were entirely un-realistic, but they
were rather quickly covered up by the fast-paced nature of the film.
The only part I really groaned at was the very end scene, but I will let
you draw your own conclusions on that so that I don’t ruin it for you!
My son just turned 10 and he liked it a lot, but did mention that a few
parts were not 100% “kid-friendly” due to the scare-factor. He was
specifically referring to one scene that made us both literally jump in
our seats. He said over all the movie was great and that he enjoyed it
immensely.
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars, and recommend that you see
it in IMAX 3D if you are able!
Jóhannes Haukur Jóhannesson) as Tau, his father.
Tau is the tribe leader, and must determine whether the young male tribe
members are ready for the annual hunt. He tests all the spear points
crafted by the boys, and passes or fails them based on the craftsmanship
of the arrowheads.
Keda is one of the only two young men that pass the test, and in spite
of his mothers (and his own) reservations, joins the hunt.
Keda isn’t a strong figure, like his father Tau, and the movie shows
some of the tension and strife this causes the father and son. Tau is
trying to teach Keda to be a leader, and Keda seems too soft-hearted to
be able to bear the task. Keda has a hard time with the killing of
animals, even though it is needed to sustain the tribe.
The annual hunt consists of tracking down a herd of bison over a span of
days, and then creeping up on them on their grazing grounds and spooking
them into headlong flight over the edge of a high cliff. The hunters
must keep the herd from turning back to the open plain by throwing their
spears and running full-tilt at the bison. The run to push the bison
over the cliffs edge starts off well, and then takes a tragic turn when
one of the bison turns towards the hunters and charges at Keda. Kedas
confidence breaks and he turns tail to run, with the bison chasing him
down. When the bison lowers his head to charge at Keda, the bisons horn
catches in Kedas clothing and the bison turns towards the cliff face and
dump Keda over the edge.
Keda miraculously lands on a rock outcropping about half way down the
cliff face, but it is still too far for Tau to reach him. Keda is
unconscious, and does not respond to his fathers calls.
Tau is convinced that he must leave his son for dead and head towards
home in order to be able to provide for the tribe.
A day later, Keda wakes and finds himself alone, with broken bones, and
no way to get off the cliff face.
What follows is a story of coming of age and determination. Keda must
find his way off the cliff face, and using the tools given to him by his
father on the way to the bison hunting grounds, find his way home. He
finds unlikely companionship in a wolf that he injured while the wolf
pack was hunting him down to try to eat him, which he nurses back to
health. He names the wolf “Alpha”, but in truth, it is Keda who is
learning to become the alpha, or leader of the pack.
The scenery in the movie is breathtaking, and the movie really comes to
life with the 3D option. I can only imagine that it would be even better
in IMAX.
There were pieces of the film that were entirely un-realistic, but they
were rather quickly covered up by the fast-paced nature of the film.
The only part I really groaned at was the very end scene, but I will let
you draw your own conclusions on that so that I don’t ruin it for you!
My son just turned 10 and he liked it a lot, but did mention that a few
parts were not 100% “kid-friendly” due to the scare-factor. He was
specifically referring to one scene that made us both literally jump in
our seats. He said over all the movie was great and that he enjoyed it
immensely.
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars, and recommend that you see
it in IMAX 3D if you are able!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Those Who Wish Me Dead (2021) in Movies
May 19, 2021
Disappointing
And…we have the “leader in the clubhouse” for the WORST FILM OF 2021.
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
Well Acted Scenes Do Not A Good Movie Make
Noah Baumbach is one of those filmmakers that is highly regarded in the "Art House" community for his semi-autobiographical humanistic films. These are domestic dramas heavy on dialogue - the type of film that "A-List" Actors swarm to perform in for the acting challenges it brings. His latest, MARRIAGE STORY, is no exception as it follows the dissolution of a marriage and the struggles of the 2 main players involved. The husband and wife are written realistically (according to Baumbach) with moments of pathos and moments of repulsion thrown in at equal measure.
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Would I Lie to the Duke (Union of the Rakes, #2) in Books
Oct 5, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a
<a href="https://ko-fi.com/diaryofdifference">Ko-fi</a>;
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-35.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
Thank you to Mills & Boon, for sending me a copy of Would I Lie to the Duke by Eva Leigh, and for the opportunity to participate on this blog tour.
Would I Lie to the Duke by Eva Leigh is the second book in the Union of the Rakes series. It can be easily read as a standalone though.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
This is the story of Jessica McGale. Her family business is in need of investors, after it collapses due to a fire. Jessica is determined to acquire investors for her business at any cost. When she realises that London’s elite will never give a chance to a humble farm girl like herself, she does the unthinkable. She poses as “Lady Whitfield” and joins the elite on the table. She especially tries to get close to the Duke of Rotherby, as his influence and support could save her company. But one thing Jess never expected to happen, is to grow feelings for him.
Noel is the carefree and notorious duke, but only his close friends truly know him. When he meets Lady Whitfield at the business bazaar, his world shifts. She makes him want to obey every command she tells, which is something he never imagined doing. He struggles to trust people, but trusting Jess is so easy.
But what happens when the business bazaar is over, and so is the fake portrayal of Lady Whitfield? How do you cope when someone has lied to you, but you want them in your life forever? Read this amazing book to find out!
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I was so hooked about this book, and I finished it in two days. While the plot is a bit predictable and it has a Cinderella vibe to it, I still enjoyed it a lot.
I could completely understand where Jess was coming from, and in order to save her business, I don’t think there were any other options, given how much rejection she faced in the first chapters. But as soon as she started developing feelings, she should’ve been honest with Noel. The person in me felt uncomfortable for her every single time she would deliberately put herself in an awkward situation and not tell the truth when she had a chance to. And the business trip to the farm? Oh, that got me biting my nails again. I also understand that continuing with the deception was a crucial part of the plot, to produce the drama that it did, but I am just not a fan of dishonesty.
<b><i>Noel was an amazing character, even though, at times, he seemed like the typical rich boy.</i></b>
I loved the way his relationship with Jess progressed during the couple of days, and how he started opening up. Honestly, I didn’t believe it at first, given that it was based on a lie. I thought that given the fact how much trust issues he had, he could never get past her betrayal. And for me, his way of coping and resolving the issue didn’t fit with his character. I have the feeling that people who are lucky enough to have a high income and live in the elite societies are much more wary of “gold diggers”, and everything Jess does (even though for a good reason), seems to be for her business. So I wouldn’t have blamed him if he reacted in a way more different way and just told her to “bugger off”.
Overall, I enjoyed Would I Lie to the Duke and it was a very pleasurable short read to get me away from reality. I don’t always dive into historical romance, and this was a surprising change that ended on a positive note. Honestly, I am glad that it sparks a debate in my mind and makes me think of “what I would have done” on either side of the relationship. I would have acted very differently. And maybe that’s the reason I’m not married to a duke (yet).
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a
<a href="https://ko-fi.com/diaryofdifference">Ko-fi</a>;
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-35.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
Thank you to Mills & Boon, for sending me a copy of Would I Lie to the Duke by Eva Leigh, and for the opportunity to participate on this blog tour.
Would I Lie to the Duke by Eva Leigh is the second book in the Union of the Rakes series. It can be easily read as a standalone though.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
This is the story of Jessica McGale. Her family business is in need of investors, after it collapses due to a fire. Jessica is determined to acquire investors for her business at any cost. When she realises that London’s elite will never give a chance to a humble farm girl like herself, she does the unthinkable. She poses as “Lady Whitfield” and joins the elite on the table. She especially tries to get close to the Duke of Rotherby, as his influence and support could save her company. But one thing Jess never expected to happen, is to grow feelings for him.
Noel is the carefree and notorious duke, but only his close friends truly know him. When he meets Lady Whitfield at the business bazaar, his world shifts. She makes him want to obey every command she tells, which is something he never imagined doing. He struggles to trust people, but trusting Jess is so easy.
But what happens when the business bazaar is over, and so is the fake portrayal of Lady Whitfield? How do you cope when someone has lied to you, but you want them in your life forever? Read this amazing book to find out!
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I was so hooked about this book, and I finished it in two days. While the plot is a bit predictable and it has a Cinderella vibe to it, I still enjoyed it a lot.
I could completely understand where Jess was coming from, and in order to save her business, I don’t think there were any other options, given how much rejection she faced in the first chapters. But as soon as she started developing feelings, she should’ve been honest with Noel. The person in me felt uncomfortable for her every single time she would deliberately put herself in an awkward situation and not tell the truth when she had a chance to. And the business trip to the farm? Oh, that got me biting my nails again. I also understand that continuing with the deception was a crucial part of the plot, to produce the drama that it did, but I am just not a fan of dishonesty.
<b><i>Noel was an amazing character, even though, at times, he seemed like the typical rich boy.</i></b>
I loved the way his relationship with Jess progressed during the couple of days, and how he started opening up. Honestly, I didn’t believe it at first, given that it was based on a lie. I thought that given the fact how much trust issues he had, he could never get past her betrayal. And for me, his way of coping and resolving the issue didn’t fit with his character. I have the feeling that people who are lucky enough to have a high income and live in the elite societies are much more wary of “gold diggers”, and everything Jess does (even though for a good reason), seems to be for her business. So I wouldn’t have blamed him if he reacted in a way more different way and just told her to “bugger off”.
Overall, I enjoyed Would I Lie to the Duke and it was a very pleasurable short read to get me away from reality. I don’t always dive into historical romance, and this was a surprising change that ended on a positive note. Honestly, I am glad that it sparks a debate in my mind and makes me think of “what I would have done” on either side of the relationship. I would have acted very differently. And maybe that’s the reason I’m not married to a duke (yet).
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Block Ness in Tabletop Games
May 10, 2021
The Loch Ness monster has been a thorn in the side of believers for so long now. We recently published a preview for a Sasquatch game, and a game featuring a werewolf. Today it’s Nessie’s turn. But this game isn’t necessarily about Nessie, but of giant water serpents vying for control over the too-small lake in which they find themselves. How did they get there? What do they eat? Will they truly come to get me if I don’t brush my teeth? I don’t know the answer to some of those questions, but here’s another: is a game about these creatures good?
Block Ness is a connections game with big chunky bits where players are taking on the mantles of ever-expanding water serpents attempting to stretch themselves out as long as possible. The winning serpent is they who either is able to stretch out furthest (by using all of their body pieces), or who is able to reach for the sun the furthest (by having the tallest head piece at game end).
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the peg board on top of the insert in the box. This signifies the lake and where the game will take place. Each player chooses a color of serpent and takes all the corresponding pieces in front of them. Each serpent has a starting body piece that is shorter than all the other pieces, and must be placed first. The youngest player places their first piece on the board, within the darkest inner colors of the lake (UNlike the setup pictured below. Sometimes you just HAVE to let little ones place wherever they like to avoid ACTUAL monster spawns). The other players follow in turn order and attach the head and tail pieces to either end of the starting segments. The game is now setup and ready to begin!
On a turn, the active player will choose a body piece to add to their serpent at either the head or tail location. Players are limited to the three spaces adjacently surrounding the head and tail segments (akin to the compass markings of North, East, South, West). The new body segment then receives either the head or tail piece on its end to signify the new growth of the serpent. No body segments may be placed in a diagonal fashion, and there will come a time when serpents will need to get creative in order to place.
Should a serpent wish to expand through an existing player’s body segment, they may only do so if they are able to place said piece ABOVE the existing segment. For example, the photo below shows the orange serpent slithering above a portion of the black serpent (whose placement now looks somewhat illegal anyway). No matter where the segment is placed the head or tail piece will need to be moved to the newly-placed segment to allow for further expansion on future turns.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has the least leftover body segments without a legal placement, or controls the serpent with the tallest head among the tied players. The winner then must gloat and challenge the others to another game.
Components. This game has great 3D serpent pieces and a nice little peg board to play on. I truly love when games include the box as part of gameplay, and this uses it well. The art and colors used throughout are simply perfect (thank you for not using boring blue, red, yellow, green). The only tiny gripe I have is more of a hope than anything. I hope that upon many many plays the peg board stays nice and doesn’t deteriorate. I realize it’s a game and it’s made out of cardboard. I know many people love seeing their games age because it shows a well-loved item, but I’m not like that. I like my games to always look new. Perhaps if the peg board ever does warp or get damaged in any way I may look into having a plexi replacement made. But that aside, this is a beautiful game with excellent components, and exactly what I would expect from Blue Orange Games.
So do I like this one? Oh yes, quite a bit! Though it is not exactly the same, I believe this may kill off an old family favorite of mine – Blokus. Again, this is not a re-theme of Blokus at all, but it certainly gives me the same vibes, but in three dimensions and with much greater flair. In both games players are actively trying to block each others’ expansion progress, but Block Ness offers a smaller board and way less pieces with which to play. This creates a more tense game in a shorter time frame, and you play with serpent monsters!!
The serpents are all so much fun to handle, and while I initially though moving the head and tail pieces would get annoying after a while, I quite enjoy seeing my new serpent monster after their endpoints are reattached. Like I mentioned earlier, I very much appreciate being able to play orange, purple, black, and a yellowy-green very similar in color to our highlight color we use for our brand. Super happy about those color choices.
All in all, to say this slays Blokus is a huge thing for me. My wife and I absolutely adore Blokus, but I think I would much rather play Block Ness. I also can play this with my kids much easier and not have to worry about one of them losing the 1×1 pieces. I am certainly not alone in recommending this one. Purple Phoenix Games gives this a legendary 10 / 12. I would be surprised if this doesn’t intrigue most gamers of almost any skill and preference. There is much strategy to be employed, and an equal amount of frustration as the serpents block in other opponents. While I have no desire to try to see the actual Loch Ness monster, I will ALWAYS be up for a game of Block Ness.
Block Ness is a connections game with big chunky bits where players are taking on the mantles of ever-expanding water serpents attempting to stretch themselves out as long as possible. The winning serpent is they who either is able to stretch out furthest (by using all of their body pieces), or who is able to reach for the sun the furthest (by having the tallest head piece at game end).
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the peg board on top of the insert in the box. This signifies the lake and where the game will take place. Each player chooses a color of serpent and takes all the corresponding pieces in front of them. Each serpent has a starting body piece that is shorter than all the other pieces, and must be placed first. The youngest player places their first piece on the board, within the darkest inner colors of the lake (UNlike the setup pictured below. Sometimes you just HAVE to let little ones place wherever they like to avoid ACTUAL monster spawns). The other players follow in turn order and attach the head and tail pieces to either end of the starting segments. The game is now setup and ready to begin!
On a turn, the active player will choose a body piece to add to their serpent at either the head or tail location. Players are limited to the three spaces adjacently surrounding the head and tail segments (akin to the compass markings of North, East, South, West). The new body segment then receives either the head or tail piece on its end to signify the new growth of the serpent. No body segments may be placed in a diagonal fashion, and there will come a time when serpents will need to get creative in order to place.
Should a serpent wish to expand through an existing player’s body segment, they may only do so if they are able to place said piece ABOVE the existing segment. For example, the photo below shows the orange serpent slithering above a portion of the black serpent (whose placement now looks somewhat illegal anyway). No matter where the segment is placed the head or tail piece will need to be moved to the newly-placed segment to allow for further expansion on future turns.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has the least leftover body segments without a legal placement, or controls the serpent with the tallest head among the tied players. The winner then must gloat and challenge the others to another game.
Components. This game has great 3D serpent pieces and a nice little peg board to play on. I truly love when games include the box as part of gameplay, and this uses it well. The art and colors used throughout are simply perfect (thank you for not using boring blue, red, yellow, green). The only tiny gripe I have is more of a hope than anything. I hope that upon many many plays the peg board stays nice and doesn’t deteriorate. I realize it’s a game and it’s made out of cardboard. I know many people love seeing their games age because it shows a well-loved item, but I’m not like that. I like my games to always look new. Perhaps if the peg board ever does warp or get damaged in any way I may look into having a plexi replacement made. But that aside, this is a beautiful game with excellent components, and exactly what I would expect from Blue Orange Games.
So do I like this one? Oh yes, quite a bit! Though it is not exactly the same, I believe this may kill off an old family favorite of mine – Blokus. Again, this is not a re-theme of Blokus at all, but it certainly gives me the same vibes, but in three dimensions and with much greater flair. In both games players are actively trying to block each others’ expansion progress, but Block Ness offers a smaller board and way less pieces with which to play. This creates a more tense game in a shorter time frame, and you play with serpent monsters!!
The serpents are all so much fun to handle, and while I initially though moving the head and tail pieces would get annoying after a while, I quite enjoy seeing my new serpent monster after their endpoints are reattached. Like I mentioned earlier, I very much appreciate being able to play orange, purple, black, and a yellowy-green very similar in color to our highlight color we use for our brand. Super happy about those color choices.
All in all, to say this slays Blokus is a huge thing for me. My wife and I absolutely adore Blokus, but I think I would much rather play Block Ness. I also can play this with my kids much easier and not have to worry about one of them losing the 1×1 pieces. I am certainly not alone in recommending this one. Purple Phoenix Games gives this a legendary 10 / 12. I would be surprised if this doesn’t intrigue most gamers of almost any skill and preference. There is much strategy to be employed, and an equal amount of frustration as the serpents block in other opponents. While I have no desire to try to see the actual Loch Ness monster, I will ALWAYS be up for a game of Block Ness.
Louise (64 KP) rated The Problem with Forever in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I have really wanted to read something by Jennifer L Armentrout for a while, one being the lux series that I have heard a lot of people in the blogosphere rave about. I wasn’t expecting to like this book as much as I did! Your probably think I say that for all the books I read, but I try not to set expectations too high. This book was addictive, I managed to read 70% of it in one day and stayed up until the early hours of the morning just so I could finish it, even though I knew I was going to be sooo tired for work the next day.
Mallory Dodge hasn’t had the easiest start in life, she grew up in Foster homes and some that were pretty awful, so much that she becomes withdrawn and the only way to keep herself safe and from drawing attention to herself is to remain as quiet as a ‘Mouse’. Until one horrific incident she manages to escape the horrific abuse that she was subjected to and adopted by Carl and Rosa two doctors that treated her but she will forever be scarred mentally and physically. Mallory is returning to a state school after being home schooled for the previous 4 years and somewhat apprehensive. Being silent has held Mallory back and she needs to start getting on with her life and one is to start socializing with people her own age and building her confidence, otherwise she fears she will be this way forever.
All is going well on her first day, well she hasn’t spoken to anyone but at least she is at school which is a big tick in the box. One of her classes is speech, one of the hardest lessons for her to overcome. She spots a boy who feels familiar to her, but it couldn’t be, could it? When the boy seats himself next to her in speech she is shocked, the boy is Rider Stark…. her best friend from when she was in the foster home, her saviour and protector, one that experienced all those awful things with her, he knows her like no-one else. With emotions and feelings about Rider all over the place, her foster parents not happy with his sudden appearance and what it will mean, Mallory has to break the silence to save everything.
OK! I need to start off with the cover, how beautiful is this book and the colours? This would instantly draw me in and buy it, you can just tell its contemporary. This book a massive 480 pages and there wasn’t a dull moment. This is such an emotional story, there is swoon worthy romance with a hot guy, there are sad times and times when my heart was racing because I was scared for Mallory and Rider, what would happen to them both.
Mallory’s character was amazing with so much development, she was such a different girl at the finish and I was overcome with pride as of how well she had managed and grew. She is a likeable character always trying to please everyone, she is shy and timid making you really feel for her.
Rider, he is Mallory’s protector and he always will be. It’s what he knows best. He skips class to make sure Mallory is not alone at lunch, he doesn’t do much when he does attend his lessons but he is an artist (not to him). He is so caring and like perfect boyfriend material it was impossible not to swoon.
Some could say the romance was a bit insta-lovey but for me it wasn’t. They hadn’t seen each other in 4 years and they were reconnecting wanting to get to know each other again and find out how life has been since they last saw each other. But their friendship was totally different from 4 years ago, and they both knew it. There was an attraction that wasn’t there before.
Throughout the story Mallory has flashbacks to when she was younger and the abuse(physically and verbally) that herself and Rider were subjected to and what lead to the incident. It shows how Rider cared for Mallory and how there pasts had shaped the people they had become.
I really liked most of the side characters in this book, there was Ainsley which was Mallory’s best friend outside of school. Hector and Jayden were cheeky chappies who Rider lived with. Paige and Carl I didn’t really warm to but I think that’s mainly because they were getting in the way of Mallory’s happiness .
This story is addictive, beautiful and heart warming, I enjoyed every page and would definitely recommend it.
I rated this 4 out of stars
I received a copy of this from Netgalley and the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Mallory Dodge hasn’t had the easiest start in life, she grew up in Foster homes and some that were pretty awful, so much that she becomes withdrawn and the only way to keep herself safe and from drawing attention to herself is to remain as quiet as a ‘Mouse’. Until one horrific incident she manages to escape the horrific abuse that she was subjected to and adopted by Carl and Rosa two doctors that treated her but she will forever be scarred mentally and physically. Mallory is returning to a state school after being home schooled for the previous 4 years and somewhat apprehensive. Being silent has held Mallory back and she needs to start getting on with her life and one is to start socializing with people her own age and building her confidence, otherwise she fears she will be this way forever.
All is going well on her first day, well she hasn’t spoken to anyone but at least she is at school which is a big tick in the box. One of her classes is speech, one of the hardest lessons for her to overcome. She spots a boy who feels familiar to her, but it couldn’t be, could it? When the boy seats himself next to her in speech she is shocked, the boy is Rider Stark…. her best friend from when she was in the foster home, her saviour and protector, one that experienced all those awful things with her, he knows her like no-one else. With emotions and feelings about Rider all over the place, her foster parents not happy with his sudden appearance and what it will mean, Mallory has to break the silence to save everything.
OK! I need to start off with the cover, how beautiful is this book and the colours? This would instantly draw me in and buy it, you can just tell its contemporary. This book a massive 480 pages and there wasn’t a dull moment. This is such an emotional story, there is swoon worthy romance with a hot guy, there are sad times and times when my heart was racing because I was scared for Mallory and Rider, what would happen to them both.
Mallory’s character was amazing with so much development, she was such a different girl at the finish and I was overcome with pride as of how well she had managed and grew. She is a likeable character always trying to please everyone, she is shy and timid making you really feel for her.
Rider, he is Mallory’s protector and he always will be. It’s what he knows best. He skips class to make sure Mallory is not alone at lunch, he doesn’t do much when he does attend his lessons but he is an artist (not to him). He is so caring and like perfect boyfriend material it was impossible not to swoon.
Some could say the romance was a bit insta-lovey but for me it wasn’t. They hadn’t seen each other in 4 years and they were reconnecting wanting to get to know each other again and find out how life has been since they last saw each other. But their friendship was totally different from 4 years ago, and they both knew it. There was an attraction that wasn’t there before.
Throughout the story Mallory has flashbacks to when she was younger and the abuse(physically and verbally) that herself and Rider were subjected to and what lead to the incident. It shows how Rider cared for Mallory and how there pasts had shaped the people they had become.
I really liked most of the side characters in this book, there was Ainsley which was Mallory’s best friend outside of school. Hector and Jayden were cheeky chappies who Rider lived with. Paige and Carl I didn’t really warm to but I think that’s mainly because they were getting in the way of Mallory’s happiness .
This story is addictive, beautiful and heart warming, I enjoyed every page and would definitely recommend it.
I rated this 4 out of stars
I received a copy of this from Netgalley and the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Breaking In (2018) (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Get In.
Into every life a little rain must fall. Some fairly pervasive advertising drove me into the cinema to see this one… often a sign that the distributors think it has legs. And from its quirky opening titles (with a COMPLETELY expected shock denouement!) I started to think it did have something. The beginning is in fact VERY similar to the introductory scene of “Get Out” in its randomness, and for one brief moment I wondered if the film was trying to parody that indie classic from last year… with only some studio lawyers getting in the way of them really calling it “Get In”. (“No, no, no… ‘Get’ is copyrighted… you’ll have to use some other word!”).
But no. It turns out that this is a pretty below-average B-movie after all,
The plot is pretty derivative of the “family in dire peril” variety made famous by the “Taken” series. Not being able to persuade Liam Neeson to wear a dress in this “Times Up” era, the Neeson-actioner writer Ryan Engle (“The Commuter“, “Non-Stop“) switches the action to focus on stressed mother Shaun Russell (Gabrielle Union).
Shaun has come to deepest Wisconsin with her two kids, Jasmine (Ajiona Alexus) and Glover (Seth Carr) to arrange the sale of her deceased father’s luxury home: a house absolutely brimming to the elegant rafters with security features. But unknown to them, there are already intruders in the house searching for something of value, and with Shaun locked outside the secure fortress home she will stop at nothing to break in and bring her children safely home.
The sad thing about this one is that the fairly unknown cast actually do a pretty good job. The chief villain Eddie, played by Billy Burke, channels an effectively ‘evil-quiet-Gary-Oldman” turn to good effect. His accomplices, the more sensitive Sam (Levi Meaden), luckless Peter (Mark Furze) and (particularly) the psychopathic Duncan (Richard Cabral) (can a psychopath really be called Duncan?) are broad caricatures, but never too broad to be totally awful.
Gabrielle Union kicks-ass effectively with her particular set of skills (see below), but particularly good is 22-year old Ajiona Alexus who has a great screen presence and deserves to be in much better films than this.
Where the film stumbles and goes crashing through its carbonite shutters is in the story and the screenplay’s dialogue.
The former is just bat-shit crazy, with so many ridiculous plot-holes and “yeah-but” moments that you lose count. For example, at one point the daughter is looking for her mobile phone WHICH IS IN THE ROOM and which would wrap the plot up in 10 minutes flat…. but then something else happens and they stop looking for it, never to be thought of again!
And what of those ‘particular set of skills’ that Shaun has? Oh, I forgot to say… she has none!! Or at least you assume not, since Shaun seems to have no back-story whatsoever, other than the fact that her daddy is very very rich and being investigated by the D/A. For what? Embezzlement? Tax evasion? Smartie-smuggling? Gun running? Perhaps he was a mafia overlord and Shaun was brought up with martial arts, gun and knife training to spy-school level? Perhaps none of the above, and she was just an obsessive watcher of Engle-scripted flicks? We will never know.
In addition, Shaun gets the proverbial crap kicked out of her on so many occasions, but there is no trip to casualty required. (Yes, I know Neeson and most other action heroes have the same implausible in-vulnerabilities, but it just seems so much less realistic when she is a not-particularly sporty or athletic woman).
And that dialogue… it’s just plain laughable in places. If Eddie doesn’t do his “Mamma hen will come back to save her chicks” speech once, he does it five times….
“Hey, James”… (James McTeigue, director, “V for Vendetta”)… says Burke, “Haven’t I said this line four times already”. “Sure”, says McTeigue, “I’m not sure where exactly I want to put it in the final cut yet, but only one of them will stay in. Don’t worry… I won’t make you look stupid to the cinema-going audience!!”
Every last thriller cliché is mined as the story grinds to an unmemorable and very flat conclusion.
Before wrapping up, I’d point out Another crime being committed in the music department. Australian composer Johnny Klimek’s action thriller score is actually quiet good, full of nice electronic riffs. But he really doesn’t know when to shut up. I remember an interview by John Williams on scoring the score to Hitchcock’s “Family Plot” where he recounted that Hitchcock taught him the value of a sudden absence of music at key moments. This film is too recent to learn the many lessons of “A Quiet Place“: but there are so many moments in this film where silence should have been golden. At one point the (what should be) heart-stopping sound effect of a creaking beam can barely be heard over Klimek’s pounding electronics.
So in summary, although it’s the award of ‘good acting attempt’ badges to sew onto the cast’s scout uniforms, my message to you dear reader re this one is “Get Out” of the cinema and enjoy the nice summer evenings instead!
But no. It turns out that this is a pretty below-average B-movie after all,
The plot is pretty derivative of the “family in dire peril” variety made famous by the “Taken” series. Not being able to persuade Liam Neeson to wear a dress in this “Times Up” era, the Neeson-actioner writer Ryan Engle (“The Commuter“, “Non-Stop“) switches the action to focus on stressed mother Shaun Russell (Gabrielle Union).
Shaun has come to deepest Wisconsin with her two kids, Jasmine (Ajiona Alexus) and Glover (Seth Carr) to arrange the sale of her deceased father’s luxury home: a house absolutely brimming to the elegant rafters with security features. But unknown to them, there are already intruders in the house searching for something of value, and with Shaun locked outside the secure fortress home she will stop at nothing to break in and bring her children safely home.
The sad thing about this one is that the fairly unknown cast actually do a pretty good job. The chief villain Eddie, played by Billy Burke, channels an effectively ‘evil-quiet-Gary-Oldman” turn to good effect. His accomplices, the more sensitive Sam (Levi Meaden), luckless Peter (Mark Furze) and (particularly) the psychopathic Duncan (Richard Cabral) (can a psychopath really be called Duncan?) are broad caricatures, but never too broad to be totally awful.
Gabrielle Union kicks-ass effectively with her particular set of skills (see below), but particularly good is 22-year old Ajiona Alexus who has a great screen presence and deserves to be in much better films than this.
Where the film stumbles and goes crashing through its carbonite shutters is in the story and the screenplay’s dialogue.
The former is just bat-shit crazy, with so many ridiculous plot-holes and “yeah-but” moments that you lose count. For example, at one point the daughter is looking for her mobile phone WHICH IS IN THE ROOM and which would wrap the plot up in 10 minutes flat…. but then something else happens and they stop looking for it, never to be thought of again!
And what of those ‘particular set of skills’ that Shaun has? Oh, I forgot to say… she has none!! Or at least you assume not, since Shaun seems to have no back-story whatsoever, other than the fact that her daddy is very very rich and being investigated by the D/A. For what? Embezzlement? Tax evasion? Smartie-smuggling? Gun running? Perhaps he was a mafia overlord and Shaun was brought up with martial arts, gun and knife training to spy-school level? Perhaps none of the above, and she was just an obsessive watcher of Engle-scripted flicks? We will never know.
In addition, Shaun gets the proverbial crap kicked out of her on so many occasions, but there is no trip to casualty required. (Yes, I know Neeson and most other action heroes have the same implausible in-vulnerabilities, but it just seems so much less realistic when she is a not-particularly sporty or athletic woman).
And that dialogue… it’s just plain laughable in places. If Eddie doesn’t do his “Mamma hen will come back to save her chicks” speech once, he does it five times….
“Hey, James”… (James McTeigue, director, “V for Vendetta”)… says Burke, “Haven’t I said this line four times already”. “Sure”, says McTeigue, “I’m not sure where exactly I want to put it in the final cut yet, but only one of them will stay in. Don’t worry… I won’t make you look stupid to the cinema-going audience!!”
Every last thriller cliché is mined as the story grinds to an unmemorable and very flat conclusion.
Before wrapping up, I’d point out Another crime being committed in the music department. Australian composer Johnny Klimek’s action thriller score is actually quiet good, full of nice electronic riffs. But he really doesn’t know when to shut up. I remember an interview by John Williams on scoring the score to Hitchcock’s “Family Plot” where he recounted that Hitchcock taught him the value of a sudden absence of music at key moments. This film is too recent to learn the many lessons of “A Quiet Place“: but there are so many moments in this film where silence should have been golden. At one point the (what should be) heart-stopping sound effect of a creaking beam can barely be heard over Klimek’s pounding electronics.
So in summary, although it’s the award of ‘good acting attempt’ badges to sew onto the cast’s scout uniforms, my message to you dear reader re this one is “Get Out” of the cinema and enjoy the nice summer evenings instead!
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tom and Jerry (2021) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
The animation looks nice (2 more)
Decent laughs
Gets the Tom and Jerry part of the movie right
Too predictable (2 more)
Bad plot
Barely above average movie overall
Visually Pleasing With Decent Laughs Sprinkled Throughout
Tom and Jerry is a 2021 live-action/CGI animated comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kevin Costello. The film was produced by Chris DeFaria and Warner Animation Group, The Story Company, and Turner Entertainment Co. and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The movie stars Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael Pena, Colin Jost, Robe Delaney and Ken Jeong.
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Bethany Fletcher (17 KP) rated Beyond a Darkened Shore in Books
Jun 25, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
I had serious mixed feelings about this book. It promised Viking’s and magic and adventure and that was all there no doubt but not really well.
The book opens straight up with a raid. This is great as it shows us Ciara’s abilities and lets us get a feel for the story to come and our characters in general. But then it didn’t live up to this great introduction. There are plenty of action sequences, battles for Dubhlinn, battles with giants, battles with sea serpents, battles with gods, but they were all so short. Seriously almost every battle was over in about three-four pages. It felt like the author had all these great ideas and then didn’t know how to execute them.
The mythology. I was excited for this book as it was a mixture of Celtic and Norse mythology. It definitely had these elements but maybe too much? There were gods and goddesses, fairy tunnels, each-uisch, giants, magic, the wild hunt, sea serpents, Valhalla, these would have all been fine if they had a purpose. Most of these things appear for 5 pages and then are never mentioned again. It read like the author was trying to throw all of the mythology she knew at us and was trying so hard to prove, Look! Magic is real in this world. It wasn’t all necessary.
The characters. I loved Ciara. She stood up for herself, she didn’t care what anyone else thought, she was strong and independent.
Leif. I liked him to start. He was sassy, sarcastic, he stood up for those he thought were getting mistreated. But then, he did some things that made me seriously question his judgement. There is a scene where Ciara cannot sleep so decides to go and find the Viking mage. When she walks into the room full of drunk Viking men on of them attempts to rape her. Leif does help but then blames her for it saying she shouldn’t have put herself in a dangerous situation. Ciara immediately calls him out and says it’s not my fault I almost got raped because I am female. He quickly tries to backtrack but she is having none of it. This made me love Ciara more and start to question Leif.
Another questionable scene is after Ciara finds out something drastic about Leif’s family. She is understandably upset and leaves. Leif proceeds to chase her, threaten to break down her door and then forces himself on her when she opens it. Again Ciara shuts him down asking how her dare kiss her at that moment. He simply wanted her and didn’t want her to be angry. HOW ABOUT DON’T FORCE YOURSLEF ON HER THEN IDIOT?
The ending. The ending felt so rushed. Seriously we fight the giants and goddesses, sail all the way back to Ireland, have another battle and get established back at Ciara’s home all wishing about 50 pages. It was so rushed. Like the writer was nearing a page count and couldn’t go over or something.
Having said all of this I did really enjoy reading the book. It didn’t take very long was a pleasant reading experience. If it sounds like something you would like then go check it out.
The book opens straight up with a raid. This is great as it shows us Ciara’s abilities and lets us get a feel for the story to come and our characters in general. But then it didn’t live up to this great introduction. There are plenty of action sequences, battles for Dubhlinn, battles with giants, battles with sea serpents, battles with gods, but they were all so short. Seriously almost every battle was over in about three-four pages. It felt like the author had all these great ideas and then didn’t know how to execute them.
The mythology. I was excited for this book as it was a mixture of Celtic and Norse mythology. It definitely had these elements but maybe too much? There were gods and goddesses, fairy tunnels, each-uisch, giants, magic, the wild hunt, sea serpents, Valhalla, these would have all been fine if they had a purpose. Most of these things appear for 5 pages and then are never mentioned again. It read like the author was trying to throw all of the mythology she knew at us and was trying so hard to prove, Look! Magic is real in this world. It wasn’t all necessary.
The characters. I loved Ciara. She stood up for herself, she didn’t care what anyone else thought, she was strong and independent.
Leif. I liked him to start. He was sassy, sarcastic, he stood up for those he thought were getting mistreated. But then, he did some things that made me seriously question his judgement. There is a scene where Ciara cannot sleep so decides to go and find the Viking mage. When she walks into the room full of drunk Viking men on of them attempts to rape her. Leif does help but then blames her for it saying she shouldn’t have put herself in a dangerous situation. Ciara immediately calls him out and says it’s not my fault I almost got raped because I am female. He quickly tries to backtrack but she is having none of it. This made me love Ciara more and start to question Leif.
Another questionable scene is after Ciara finds out something drastic about Leif’s family. She is understandably upset and leaves. Leif proceeds to chase her, threaten to break down her door and then forces himself on her when she opens it. Again Ciara shuts him down asking how her dare kiss her at that moment. He simply wanted her and didn’t want her to be angry. HOW ABOUT DON’T FORCE YOURSLEF ON HER THEN IDIOT?
The ending. The ending felt so rushed. Seriously we fight the giants and goddesses, sail all the way back to Ireland, have another battle and get established back at Ciara’s home all wishing about 50 pages. It was so rushed. Like the writer was nearing a page count and couldn’t go over or something.
Having said all of this I did really enjoy reading the book. It didn’t take very long was a pleasant reading experience. If it sounds like something you would like then go check it out.