Search
Search results
*＊✿❀ Maki ❀✿＊* (7 KP) rated The Warrior Heir (The Heir Chronicles, #1) in Books
May 3, 2018
[a:Cinda Williams Chima|125308|Cinda Williams Chima|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1291420167p2/125308.jpg] was my biggest takeaway from [b:The Way of the Wizard|8121665|The Way of the Wizard|John Joseph Adams|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1297656860s/8121665.jpg|12917149]. I absolutely adored the short story of how Linda and Hastings met, and knew that I had to read the actual series.
You can definitely tell that this was written a few years before the short story in The Way of the Wizard. The writing isn't quite on the same level - all of the key elements are still there, but in a rawer form.
That's not a bad thing. I'm not insulting the quality of the writing, at all. It was still a very enjoyable story, and the writing and the editing were solid. And I'm happy to watch the progression of the narrative, as it gets stronger over time.
...but. If I had read The Warrior Heir before I read "The Trader and the Slave", I probably would have enjoyed this book more than I did. Part of me kept waiting for the dark, grittiness that the short story had, and it never really showed up.
Were parts of The Warrior Heir heavy? Sure. There's a lot of double-crossing, morality, and self-sacrifice in there. But it wasn't quite the same.
Sorry for that slight detour there. I felt that, before I started talking about the book itself, I should explain the factors that went towards my final rating.
Because, in general, I loved this book. It was a lot of fun to read. I loved the "world" and the magic system, I loved the history and explanations of why magic works, and where it came from. The dedication to the magic system was very nice, and much appreciated in such an action-based fantasy book.
The main characters all managed to keep me interested in what was going on (even though there wasn't nearly enough Linda and Hastings in there for me), and the antagonists walked a delicate balance of being evil, and just doing what they thought would be best for themselves, or for those around them. Even some of the protagonists walked that line, which was <i>really</i> nice to see.
Morality - it's pretty important to the story.
There weren't really any surprises in the plot department. It was incredibly easy to guess the various "twists" the book had to offer. <spoiler>Especially anything having to do with Ellen.</spoiler> But personally, I was too distracted by the world-building to overly care about how predictable things were.
Because in Maki-land, well-established magic system > plot.
You can definitely tell that this was written a few years before the short story in The Way of the Wizard. The writing isn't quite on the same level - all of the key elements are still there, but in a rawer form.
That's not a bad thing. I'm not insulting the quality of the writing, at all. It was still a very enjoyable story, and the writing and the editing were solid. And I'm happy to watch the progression of the narrative, as it gets stronger over time.
...but. If I had read The Warrior Heir before I read "The Trader and the Slave", I probably would have enjoyed this book more than I did. Part of me kept waiting for the dark, grittiness that the short story had, and it never really showed up.
Were parts of The Warrior Heir heavy? Sure. There's a lot of double-crossing, morality, and self-sacrifice in there. But it wasn't quite the same.
Sorry for that slight detour there. I felt that, before I started talking about the book itself, I should explain the factors that went towards my final rating.
Because, in general, I loved this book. It was a lot of fun to read. I loved the "world" and the magic system, I loved the history and explanations of why magic works, and where it came from. The dedication to the magic system was very nice, and much appreciated in such an action-based fantasy book.
The main characters all managed to keep me interested in what was going on (even though there wasn't nearly enough Linda and Hastings in there for me), and the antagonists walked a delicate balance of being evil, and just doing what they thought would be best for themselves, or for those around them. Even some of the protagonists walked that line, which was <i>really</i> nice to see.
Morality - it's pretty important to the story.
There weren't really any surprises in the plot department. It was incredibly easy to guess the various "twists" the book had to offer. <spoiler>Especially anything having to do with Ellen.</spoiler> But personally, I was too distracted by the world-building to overly care about how predictable things were.
Because in Maki-land, well-established magic system > plot.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In that sleep of death, what dreams may come.
“Ghost Stories” is based on the spooky London West-End stage play by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman who both write and direct the film version. I didn’t know this until the end credits, but began to wonder in the final act where the action suddenly becomes very “stagey” in nature. The screenplay was always bound to be both bizarre and intriguing, since Dyson has been a past contributor to TV’s “League of Gentlemen” and other equally surreal programmes and Nyman has been a major collaborator with the stage-illusionist Derren Brown.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Mar 13, 2020
Cracking British all star cast (1 more)
Reminds you just how crazy politics was in 2003
The best little UK film you've never seen
A film about whistle-blowing against the backdrop of the Iraq War of 2003 doesn't sound like a very appealing watch, but "Official Secrets" defies all those fears. It's a cracking little UK movie.
Two years after 9/11, and the West has its sights set on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Tony Blair and George "Dubya" Bush (together with that behind-the-scenes pit-bull Don Cheney - as featured in "Vice") are determined to persuade the United Nations that WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction - are in place, whether they are or not. London is threatened with being a nuclear wasteland within 45 minutes. Of course, while certain areas of the press (including the leadership of "The Guardian") support the war, the majority of the British people think this is total b*llocks! Two journalists - the irascible and volatile Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and the head-down but relentless Martin Bright (Matt Smith) - are determined to uncover the truth behind the two government's machinations.
Enter Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley), an interpreter at GCHQ in Cheltenham who, when brought into a loop of the dirty government dealing, takes great exception to it. Unfortunately, she has signed the Official Secret's Act, a document incompatible with a conscience, and with a Kurdish husband Yasar (Adam Bakri) seeking British residence, she is in no position to throw stones.
Can Katharine's legal team, led by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes), keep her away from a long prison sentence?
We've seen lots of fictional movies about the little guy up against the immovable mass and sunglass-wearing creepiness of the state: Will Smith's excellent "Enemy of the State" is a great example. Here the frisson in the script by Gregory Bernstein, Sara Bernstein and director Gavin Hood, based on the book by Marsha and Thomas Mitchell, is that it is all based on fact, brought brilliantly to life with interspersed news footage.
It's easy to forget, with nearly 20 years having passed, just how completely f****d up the world was after 9/11. Sabre-rattling became a US obsession, and the news-reel shots of Bush and Blair trying to justify their actions is really quite vomit-inducing.
Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances in years as the rather naive every-woman for appreciates she's digging a hole but has only dawning realisation as to how deep it goes.
But the supporting cast is also outstanding with Smith and Ifans being enormously entertaining as the journos, supported by their supportive boss - Downton's Matthew Goode. Ralph Fiennes delivers a typically underplayed and powerful performance as the legal beagle. Other well known faces popping up include Tamsin Greig and W1A's Monica Dolan.
How gripped you will be will depend on your memory! Mine is officially useless... so the denouement when it came was a surprise to me! But this is a little British film that really packs a punch. Extremely watchable and with a star cast, this ones a keeper. Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/12/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-official-secrets-2019/ Thanks).
Two years after 9/11, and the West has its sights set on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Tony Blair and George "Dubya" Bush (together with that behind-the-scenes pit-bull Don Cheney - as featured in "Vice") are determined to persuade the United Nations that WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction - are in place, whether they are or not. London is threatened with being a nuclear wasteland within 45 minutes. Of course, while certain areas of the press (including the leadership of "The Guardian") support the war, the majority of the British people think this is total b*llocks! Two journalists - the irascible and volatile Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and the head-down but relentless Martin Bright (Matt Smith) - are determined to uncover the truth behind the two government's machinations.
Enter Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley), an interpreter at GCHQ in Cheltenham who, when brought into a loop of the dirty government dealing, takes great exception to it. Unfortunately, she has signed the Official Secret's Act, a document incompatible with a conscience, and with a Kurdish husband Yasar (Adam Bakri) seeking British residence, she is in no position to throw stones.
Can Katharine's legal team, led by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes), keep her away from a long prison sentence?
We've seen lots of fictional movies about the little guy up against the immovable mass and sunglass-wearing creepiness of the state: Will Smith's excellent "Enemy of the State" is a great example. Here the frisson in the script by Gregory Bernstein, Sara Bernstein and director Gavin Hood, based on the book by Marsha and Thomas Mitchell, is that it is all based on fact, brought brilliantly to life with interspersed news footage.
It's easy to forget, with nearly 20 years having passed, just how completely f****d up the world was after 9/11. Sabre-rattling became a US obsession, and the news-reel shots of Bush and Blair trying to justify their actions is really quite vomit-inducing.
Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances in years as the rather naive every-woman for appreciates she's digging a hole but has only dawning realisation as to how deep it goes.
But the supporting cast is also outstanding with Smith and Ifans being enormously entertaining as the journos, supported by their supportive boss - Downton's Matthew Goode. Ralph Fiennes delivers a typically underplayed and powerful performance as the legal beagle. Other well known faces popping up include Tamsin Greig and W1A's Monica Dolan.
How gripped you will be will depend on your memory! Mine is officially useless... so the denouement when it came was a surprise to me! But this is a little British film that really packs a punch. Extremely watchable and with a star cast, this ones a keeper. Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/12/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-official-secrets-2019/ Thanks).
Mastering the 48 Laws of Power: Foundations
Business and Education
App
Launch your discreet, skillful campaign for power at work: immediately. “Foundations” is the...
WowApp - Earn. Share. Do Good
Social Networking
App
WowApp Earn. Share. Do Good WowApp is a FREE revolutionary platform that allows you to earn as a...
Chinagram - Chinese Writing
Education and Reference
App
With Chinagram you can approach Chinese by discovering the meaning and origin of 300 of this...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Julie & Julia (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
Julie & Julia’ is an intertwined tale based on the two true stories of cooking legend Julia Child (Meryl Streep) and that of author Julie Powell (Amy Adams). It is a story of non-traditional mentoring and the value of hard work and dedication, covering the process Child went through creating the 1961 classic Mastering the Art of French Cooking alongside the tale of Powell who was made famous when she blogged her way through Child’s book.
The films leads do nothing but deliver. Amy Adams, sporting a spunky new haircut, creates a character that is both soul searching and fun to watch. Meryl Streep amazingly transforms into Child, having perfected the subtleties of her personality so well that I found myself remising back to my single digit years.
The costumes are delightful and manage to seamlessly separate the two women’s tales while uniting them into a bigger story. The use of color and pacing make this a film that displays not only a change in time and lifestyle, but also the uniting human values that are entirely timeless.
A story of relationships and personal growth, combined with moments of laughter and hardship, I found myself in the mood I enjoyed through ‘Chocolat’ and ‘The Pursuit of Happyness’.
The film could have used more food imagery and I felt like the character of Eric Powell (Chris Messina) could have been better developed. But the delightful relationship between Julia and her husband Paul Child, played by the ever-enchanting Stanley Tucci, made this film a wildly entertaining journey.
On top of being a well-told tale, ‘Julie & Julia’ has that je ne sais quoi which make it a truly exceptional piece of film, and I know this because even my action loving husband enjoyed it. Well worth the price of admission ‘Julie & Julia’ is a time traveling felicity that is sure to win your heart, as it has mine.
The films leads do nothing but deliver. Amy Adams, sporting a spunky new haircut, creates a character that is both soul searching and fun to watch. Meryl Streep amazingly transforms into Child, having perfected the subtleties of her personality so well that I found myself remising back to my single digit years.
The costumes are delightful and manage to seamlessly separate the two women’s tales while uniting them into a bigger story. The use of color and pacing make this a film that displays not only a change in time and lifestyle, but also the uniting human values that are entirely timeless.
A story of relationships and personal growth, combined with moments of laughter and hardship, I found myself in the mood I enjoyed through ‘Chocolat’ and ‘The Pursuit of Happyness’.
The film could have used more food imagery and I felt like the character of Eric Powell (Chris Messina) could have been better developed. But the delightful relationship between Julia and her husband Paul Child, played by the ever-enchanting Stanley Tucci, made this film a wildly entertaining journey.
On top of being a well-told tale, ‘Julie & Julia’ has that je ne sais quoi which make it a truly exceptional piece of film, and I know this because even my action loving husband enjoyed it. Well worth the price of admission ‘Julie & Julia’ is a time traveling felicity that is sure to win your heart, as it has mine.
The Witchfinder's Sister
9.0
Rate It
Book
'VIVID AND TERRIFYING' Paula Hawkins, author of The Girl on the Train 'At once a feminist parable...
Horizon Zero Dawn Guide
Book
With a setting unlike any other to explore, and mysteries lying buried, waiting to be uncovered,...
Financial & Managerial Accounting: Student's Book
Carl S. Warren, Jonathan Duchac and James Reeve
Book
Market-leading Warren/Reeve/Duchac's FINANCIAL AND MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTING has been on the forefront...