Search
Search results
Merissa (12934 KP) rated Fagin's Boy (Oliver & Jack #1) by Jackie North in Books
Apr 21, 2022 (Updated Jun 24, 2023)
FAGIN'S BOY is the first book in the Oliver and Jack series, and as you may have gathered, it follows on from Oliver Twist. Oliver is now seventeen and the story starts with him attending the funeral of the man who took him in and looked after him, Mr Brownlow. Not knowing what will happen to him next, Oliver takes on an apprenticeship at a haberdashery, hoping it will give him experience for when he opens his own, long-dreamed-about, bookstore.
Jack has just returned to London after being hextricated to Australia. I had to suspend belief a little here as I've never heard of that happening before. He is still the cheeky chappie you may recognise but is altogether more fragile and hard. A paradox, for sure. He reminded me of a piece of flint.
Anyway, the story follows Oliver and Jack for a few months as circumstances change for Oliver. I thought the descriptions of the living conditions, plus how the children are treated in the workhouse, to be definitely in keeping with the original book by Dickens, as well as what was hinted at in the musical film.
Whilst Jack revelled in his circumstances, he was also desperate for stories about those he remembers. This leads him to a friendship with Noah, who Oliver doesn't like or trust. Oliver, on the other hand, wants more than he has right now. He wants his bookshop. He doesn't want to steal. He would like Jack to be with him but is prepared to make a break if Jack doesn't want to come.
There is a HFN ending to this first book and I am sure there will be plenty more adventures for our twosome. Although I have read and enjoyed other historical books by Ms North, I can't honestly say I enjoyed this one as much and I'm not sure why. All of the ingredients were there but, for me, they just didn't mix as well as I had expected. I am glad I have read this book and would recommend it to anyone with an interest in Oliver Twist and the hard, grimy Victorian times.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Apr 14, 2022
Jack has just returned to London after being hextricated to Australia. I had to suspend belief a little here as I've never heard of that happening before. He is still the cheeky chappie you may recognise but is altogether more fragile and hard. A paradox, for sure. He reminded me of a piece of flint.
Anyway, the story follows Oliver and Jack for a few months as circumstances change for Oliver. I thought the descriptions of the living conditions, plus how the children are treated in the workhouse, to be definitely in keeping with the original book by Dickens, as well as what was hinted at in the musical film.
Whilst Jack revelled in his circumstances, he was also desperate for stories about those he remembers. This leads him to a friendship with Noah, who Oliver doesn't like or trust. Oliver, on the other hand, wants more than he has right now. He wants his bookshop. He doesn't want to steal. He would like Jack to be with him but is prepared to make a break if Jack doesn't want to come.
There is a HFN ending to this first book and I am sure there will be plenty more adventures for our twosome. Although I have read and enjoyed other historical books by Ms North, I can't honestly say I enjoyed this one as much and I'm not sure why. All of the ingredients were there but, for me, they just didn't mix as well as I had expected. I am glad I have read this book and would recommend it to anyone with an interest in Oliver Twist and the hard, grimy Victorian times.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Apr 14, 2022
Caitlin Ann Cherniak (85 KP) rated Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire in Books
Oct 22, 2018
Why do I have a feeling that the guy who wrote this just went on a rant and decided to put that whole rant into one giant ass book?
Don't get me wrong. This book has a couple of points, especially when he discusses religion and the Salem witch trails. However, when he starts getting into the more modern points of fantasy, either I didn't see it at all, or he was basically really poking fun at what the whole point of fantasy really is.
The title of the book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire. If he's going to use the word "Haywire" in a title, he better show pretty clear examples of why America is being flushed down the toilet. Poking fun at people cosplaying, playing video games, and being able to have fun at Disneyland or Disney World is not a point to say why America seems to be failing as a society. In fact, I can make a counterargument by saying that flights of fantasy in those contexts are actually forming the culture, not destroying it. Because of the evolution of entertainment (such as film, video games, etc.), it's easier to envision fantasy stories come to life. Before that, we had books, and no one was poking fun at books throughout this entire giant essay. Not only is that missing the forest for the trees, but it makes the argument of people being shown too much fantasy through visual mass media is a very shallow take on the topic of fantasy.
Also, the premise of the book talks about how people are arguing that Trump is ruining America because of his bullshit (and they're not wrong). I expected the book to discuss politics more in depth as a way to add onto the fantasyland argument. The book doesn't even do that, not even at the end when it "comes full circle" back to the Trump argument. If anything, the book kinda let it slide that it was for Trump and his radical ideas rather than finding flaws in them as people would expect. Look, if the book ended up explaining why Trump was trying to escape the Fantasyland argument, I'm all for reading that to make my own points. However, by just simply saying that Trump is being more realistic without any real reason, that also makes this essay a shallow writing. People want to read on why Trump has realistic views or not. If the point of this essay is talking about how fantastic ideas are plaguing a great nation, why not add that into the mix?
This essay was a real hit and miss for me. For something that's as thick as War and Peace, I expected this essay to have as juicy material as War and Peace, but it doesn't. It's just a 500 year rant on how "stupid" society can be, and that lost me as I finished the book.
Don't get me wrong. This book has a couple of points, especially when he discusses religion and the Salem witch trails. However, when he starts getting into the more modern points of fantasy, either I didn't see it at all, or he was basically really poking fun at what the whole point of fantasy really is.
The title of the book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire. If he's going to use the word "Haywire" in a title, he better show pretty clear examples of why America is being flushed down the toilet. Poking fun at people cosplaying, playing video games, and being able to have fun at Disneyland or Disney World is not a point to say why America seems to be failing as a society. In fact, I can make a counterargument by saying that flights of fantasy in those contexts are actually forming the culture, not destroying it. Because of the evolution of entertainment (such as film, video games, etc.), it's easier to envision fantasy stories come to life. Before that, we had books, and no one was poking fun at books throughout this entire giant essay. Not only is that missing the forest for the trees, but it makes the argument of people being shown too much fantasy through visual mass media is a very shallow take on the topic of fantasy.
Also, the premise of the book talks about how people are arguing that Trump is ruining America because of his bullshit (and they're not wrong). I expected the book to discuss politics more in depth as a way to add onto the fantasyland argument. The book doesn't even do that, not even at the end when it "comes full circle" back to the Trump argument. If anything, the book kinda let it slide that it was for Trump and his radical ideas rather than finding flaws in them as people would expect. Look, if the book ended up explaining why Trump was trying to escape the Fantasyland argument, I'm all for reading that to make my own points. However, by just simply saying that Trump is being more realistic without any real reason, that also makes this essay a shallow writing. People want to read on why Trump has realistic views or not. If the point of this essay is talking about how fantastic ideas are plaguing a great nation, why not add that into the mix?
This essay was a real hit and miss for me. For something that's as thick as War and Peace, I expected this essay to have as juicy material as War and Peace, but it doesn't. It's just a 500 year rant on how "stupid" society can be, and that lost me as I finished the book.
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated Deadly Outbreaks in Books
Aug 21, 2017
Important, interesting, freaky and even a little terrifying
A fascinating look into the Centre for Disease Control and their role in dealing with some serious but highly interesting, insane real life outbreaks. Each chapter discusses fatal cases which in itself can be turned into a film. From deadly ice cream, to an epidemic of newborns dying at a hospital - these are important cases that need addressing and for further public awareness. As vital as this book is, it's filled with scientific jargon and requires concentration. A great read.
Adrian Denton (4 KP) created a post
May 12, 2018
Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars, 1916-1926
Book
The Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars, 1916-1926 covers the history of this period...
Suzanne Vega recommended Charlie Chaplin's Own Story in Books (curated)
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Happy Death Day 2U (2019) in Movies
Jun 27, 2019
It carries on from the first film and links in nicely! You must see the first to appreciate sone of the humour in this dark, but hilarious time- travelling comedy! (1 more)
Quite sad in places too- there’s a real story behind the humour. A dilemma the main protagonist must face when she realises she can get exactly what she wants when she is in control of her destiny!
A time travelling theme with a moral dilemma!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Watchmen (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
**I've seen Tales of the Black Freighter, but I'm not sure I've ever seen the Ultimate Cut of this.**
A comedian died in New York. Someone threw him out of a window and when he hit the sidewalk his head was driven into his stomach. The only person that seems to care is Rorschach, the one superhero who refuses to take off his mask. The Keene Act was passed in 1977 banning all forms of costumed crimefighting. Rorschach continues to do so as he feels his mask is his true face. His theory is that someone is out to kill costumed heroes and that it's his responsibility to inform his former colleagues. There's Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II whom Rorschach used to be partners with before Dan retired, Adrian Veidt/Ozymondias, one of two costumed heroes to make his identity public who's also a self-made millionaire and considered to be the smartest man in the world, Dr. Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, the only one of the group who has genuine super powers thanks to an accident that nearly killed him who is now commissioned by the government, Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II, her mother was in the Minutemen along with The Comedian and wanted her daughter to follow in her footsteps, and finally Edward Blake/The Comedian, another superhero commissioned by the government that knows more than he should while his knowledge takes its toll on him and whoever is around him at the time thanks to his reckless and sadistic behavior. What any of them fail to realize is that there's a conspiracy going on that's bigger than any of them could have ever imagined.
I had watched the motion comic in its entirety earlier in the week to get myself ready for this and it had really gotten me excited for this film. The first time I read Watchmen, I thought it was good but not great. However, I thoroughly enjoyed it the second time through. My biggest question going into the film is how I would feel about the altered ending since I already knew about that going into it. Turns out that the ending in question wasn't so bad, but I wasn't happy with some of the other things that were changed or left out to lead up to said ending.
The film is pretty much right on the money the majority of the time. Zack Snyder continues his trend of pulling panels directly from the source material and making them a cinematic reality. The dialogue is often times word for word from the graphic novel and doesn't feel forced or out of place when something new is used. The cast left nothing to be complained about as they all did a great job. Jackie Earle Haley was a fantastic Rorschach. He sounded just the way I expected Rorschach to sound and just looked like a splitting image of Walter Kovacs. Billy Crudup's emotionless Dr. Manhattan was also pretty much just as I envisioned. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian was the one I seemed to be most pleased with. He did a great job making you care about this costumed superhero who did brutally sadistic things to people yet somehow still made you care about his character. Snyder's use of slow motion seems to be used more efficiently this time around. It felt like it was used only when needed rather than just to be eye candy. The effects used with Dr. Manhattan are worth a mention. Even if he's just standing there, you can tell how much time and effort was put into making him look spectacular. Let alone cost quite a bit of money. Rorschach's mask was also an interesting special effect that is sure to catch anyone's eye. The effects are pretty flawless and should please most moviegoers.
There was a lot of material left out of the film or changed that I wasn't particularly happy with. I don't want to seem too nitpicky, so I'll only touch base on a few of them. I view most of the stuff that was left out as character development that was important to the overall story. Most of the material in question concerns Rorschach; he visited Adrian Veidt to warn him of his mask killer theory not Dan, his response to The Keene Act, Walter Kovac's landlady, anything concerning his apartment, and his drop box, where he hides his mask during the day, everything about his psychiatrist's relationship bending and breaking during the course of the Rorschach case, how and where he got the mask, how he disposed of the man who kidnapped that little girl, and it just keeps going. Most of that was left out of the theatrical version of the film. Around the halfway point to the end of the film, I felt like it just strayed further and further away from the source material. In the novel, Dr. Manhattan is the only superhero with superpowers. The film kind of leaves that up in the air since other characters are seen punching stone off of walls and jumping to inhuman heights into the air. It was just kind of a, "Wait...what?" kind of moment for me. I realize it was probably just the wirework used that I'm questioning, but it didn't sit well with me.
I'm hoping the final cut of the film that's rumored to be three hours to three and a half hours long puts some of these important bits (including Hollis' death and The Black Freighter storyline among other things) back into the story. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy it, but it wound up just not meeting my expectations. My recommendation is don't read the graphic novel before viewing the film. The film is worthwhile for Zack Snyder enthusiasts, comic book fans, and pretty much anyone looking for a good action film. I would recommend it to just about anyone, but I think that ultimate version of the DVD is going to be what fans will really be excited over and for good reason. As a film, it's incredibly entertaining. In comparison to the graphic novel, it comes up a bit short. For now, I just see it as a good film that could have been a lot better.
A comedian died in New York. Someone threw him out of a window and when he hit the sidewalk his head was driven into his stomach. The only person that seems to care is Rorschach, the one superhero who refuses to take off his mask. The Keene Act was passed in 1977 banning all forms of costumed crimefighting. Rorschach continues to do so as he feels his mask is his true face. His theory is that someone is out to kill costumed heroes and that it's his responsibility to inform his former colleagues. There's Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II whom Rorschach used to be partners with before Dan retired, Adrian Veidt/Ozymondias, one of two costumed heroes to make his identity public who's also a self-made millionaire and considered to be the smartest man in the world, Dr. Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, the only one of the group who has genuine super powers thanks to an accident that nearly killed him who is now commissioned by the government, Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II, her mother was in the Minutemen along with The Comedian and wanted her daughter to follow in her footsteps, and finally Edward Blake/The Comedian, another superhero commissioned by the government that knows more than he should while his knowledge takes its toll on him and whoever is around him at the time thanks to his reckless and sadistic behavior. What any of them fail to realize is that there's a conspiracy going on that's bigger than any of them could have ever imagined.
I had watched the motion comic in its entirety earlier in the week to get myself ready for this and it had really gotten me excited for this film. The first time I read Watchmen, I thought it was good but not great. However, I thoroughly enjoyed it the second time through. My biggest question going into the film is how I would feel about the altered ending since I already knew about that going into it. Turns out that the ending in question wasn't so bad, but I wasn't happy with some of the other things that were changed or left out to lead up to said ending.
The film is pretty much right on the money the majority of the time. Zack Snyder continues his trend of pulling panels directly from the source material and making them a cinematic reality. The dialogue is often times word for word from the graphic novel and doesn't feel forced or out of place when something new is used. The cast left nothing to be complained about as they all did a great job. Jackie Earle Haley was a fantastic Rorschach. He sounded just the way I expected Rorschach to sound and just looked like a splitting image of Walter Kovacs. Billy Crudup's emotionless Dr. Manhattan was also pretty much just as I envisioned. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian was the one I seemed to be most pleased with. He did a great job making you care about this costumed superhero who did brutally sadistic things to people yet somehow still made you care about his character. Snyder's use of slow motion seems to be used more efficiently this time around. It felt like it was used only when needed rather than just to be eye candy. The effects used with Dr. Manhattan are worth a mention. Even if he's just standing there, you can tell how much time and effort was put into making him look spectacular. Let alone cost quite a bit of money. Rorschach's mask was also an interesting special effect that is sure to catch anyone's eye. The effects are pretty flawless and should please most moviegoers.
There was a lot of material left out of the film or changed that I wasn't particularly happy with. I don't want to seem too nitpicky, so I'll only touch base on a few of them. I view most of the stuff that was left out as character development that was important to the overall story. Most of the material in question concerns Rorschach; he visited Adrian Veidt to warn him of his mask killer theory not Dan, his response to The Keene Act, Walter Kovac's landlady, anything concerning his apartment, and his drop box, where he hides his mask during the day, everything about his psychiatrist's relationship bending and breaking during the course of the Rorschach case, how and where he got the mask, how he disposed of the man who kidnapped that little girl, and it just keeps going. Most of that was left out of the theatrical version of the film. Around the halfway point to the end of the film, I felt like it just strayed further and further away from the source material. In the novel, Dr. Manhattan is the only superhero with superpowers. The film kind of leaves that up in the air since other characters are seen punching stone off of walls and jumping to inhuman heights into the air. It was just kind of a, "Wait...what?" kind of moment for me. I realize it was probably just the wirework used that I'm questioning, but it didn't sit well with me.
I'm hoping the final cut of the film that's rumored to be three hours to three and a half hours long puts some of these important bits (including Hollis' death and The Black Freighter storyline among other things) back into the story. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy it, but it wound up just not meeting my expectations. My recommendation is don't read the graphic novel before viewing the film. The film is worthwhile for Zack Snyder enthusiasts, comic book fans, and pretty much anyone looking for a good action film. I would recommend it to just about anyone, but I think that ultimate version of the DVD is going to be what fans will really be excited over and for good reason. As a film, it's incredibly entertaining. In comparison to the graphic novel, it comes up a bit short. For now, I just see it as a good film that could have been a lot better.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 19, 2018
I didn't get it
I have to admit, I haven't seen the first film so it is possible my enjoyment of this suffered as a result. But my wife has and it sounds like I shouldn't have needed to see that to get this.
For me, the film was all over the place, plot-wise. It is cleat it was devised as a film rather than adapted from a book. It seems like the plot was simply used to justify the big effects set pieces they had planned. A number of times characters make odd choices for odder reasons and just happen to end up in the thick of the action and a number of revelations made are either so obvious, totally irrelevant (the necklace) or confusing (so were the babies switched or not?!).
I didn't really like Newt as a character, he reminds me too much of the public school boys with the foppish hair I see on the train every morning, doing their homework at the last possible moment and blocking the aisle with their massive kit bags. Ahem, anyway.
Jonny Depp as the baddie was a massive missed opportunity. He could have been so much darker and more mysterious, instead he was more a disapproving teacher, just looking down his nose at everyone and muttering. There was no real sense of evil. Now that I think of it, I couldn't actually say what his "crimes" were, other than escaping prison and murdering a family and living in their home. After that, he was more like a politician than anything else.
And Nicolas Flamel - what was that all about - why was he there at all?
All in all, I just did not enjoy it and thought it a mess of a film with no attempt at a valid plot and no ending.
For me, the film was all over the place, plot-wise. It is cleat it was devised as a film rather than adapted from a book. It seems like the plot was simply used to justify the big effects set pieces they had planned. A number of times characters make odd choices for odder reasons and just happen to end up in the thick of the action and a number of revelations made are either so obvious, totally irrelevant (the necklace) or confusing (so were the babies switched or not?!).
I didn't really like Newt as a character, he reminds me too much of the public school boys with the foppish hair I see on the train every morning, doing their homework at the last possible moment and blocking the aisle with their massive kit bags. Ahem, anyway.
Jonny Depp as the baddie was a massive missed opportunity. He could have been so much darker and more mysterious, instead he was more a disapproving teacher, just looking down his nose at everyone and muttering. There was no real sense of evil. Now that I think of it, I couldn't actually say what his "crimes" were, other than escaping prison and murdering a family and living in their home. After that, he was more like a politician than anything else.
And Nicolas Flamel - what was that all about - why was he there at all?
All in all, I just did not enjoy it and thought it a mess of a film with no attempt at a valid plot and no ending.
