Search
Search results
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) rated The Stand in TV
Feb 10, 2021
I've never written a full review before as I let my score tell the story for the film/TV show in my view and don't like to influence people by what I write, simply put watch it and make your own judgement but with this steaming pile of crap I've had to do this just to get the anger and loathing off my chest.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
"i'd like to purchase some of your finest beer please"
Shout "Shazam!" into the sky and you're struck by a bolt of lightning from the heavens; blessed with the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the stamina of Atlas, the power of Zeus, the courage of Achilles and the speed of Mercury. Instantly elevated from whatever you were into your peak self; reborn with a crack of thunder, a flash of light and a cloud of smoke. It's a wonderfully novel and simple idea for a comic book character. Something that allows for a spectacular hero moment right before each conflict or feat; an epic bit of imagery to light up the night sky and electrify the frame. This transformation also perfectly captures the spirit of both this film and it's hero; a belief in the idea that even the most forgotten, marginalized and seemingly powerless person can change the world.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Silver Streak (1976) in Movies
Jun 7, 2020
The start of a wonderful comedic partnership
Most people remember Gene Wilder as the frazzled haired wild man in such Mel Brooks classic films as THE PRODUCERS, BLAZING SADDLES and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Others will recall him as the mad genius that held our attention in WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, but there was a 3rd phase to Wilder's career - his unlikely partnership with Richard Pryor - that started with 1976's SILVER STREAK.
Set aboard the titular passenger train, SILVER STREAK is part Alfred Hitchcock "wrong man" suspense thriller, part comedy and part action flick with strong performances at the center anchoring the action.
Surprisingly, Wilder brings a sincere quality to his "everyman" hero of this tale. His book editor, George Caldwell, just wants a quiet 2 1/2 day trip on the train from Los Angeles to Chicago. You root for George from the start. Wilder's performance is deftly tailored to this movie, keeping a lid on his more frenetic energy that helps keep his character grounded. He pairs nicely with Jill Clayburgh (remember her from the '70's?) as a women he meets (and falls in love with) along the way. Clayburgh burst into the spotlight with this performance - and the 2 have tremendous chemistry together.
They are joined by a bevy of wonderful character actors - Ray Walston, Richard "Jaws" Kiel, Ned Beatty, Clifton James, Valerie Curtin, Fred Willard and the great Scatman Crothers. All bring life and energy to this film. Patrick McGoohan is perfectly cast as the villain of the piece. His "buttoned-up" bad guy is the perfect balance to the Wilder's character.
But, of course, the person who steals this film is the great Richard Pryor as Grover T. Muldoon, a petty thief, con-man and "street-wise" hood who aids George in defeating the bad guys. Pryor doesn't show up in this movie until about 1/2 way through, but when he does, the energy (and pace) of this film picks up considerably and the roller coaster ride begins. The comedic partnership between Wilder and Pryor is magnificent, they play off each other very well and they will end up pairing together in 3 other films after this.
Director Arthur Hiller (THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY) does a strong, professional job of keeping the movie moving, keeping events grounded until a thrilling conclusion that is satisfying, indeed.
A fun action-thriller that is perfect summer fodder.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set aboard the titular passenger train, SILVER STREAK is part Alfred Hitchcock "wrong man" suspense thriller, part comedy and part action flick with strong performances at the center anchoring the action.
Surprisingly, Wilder brings a sincere quality to his "everyman" hero of this tale. His book editor, George Caldwell, just wants a quiet 2 1/2 day trip on the train from Los Angeles to Chicago. You root for George from the start. Wilder's performance is deftly tailored to this movie, keeping a lid on his more frenetic energy that helps keep his character grounded. He pairs nicely with Jill Clayburgh (remember her from the '70's?) as a women he meets (and falls in love with) along the way. Clayburgh burst into the spotlight with this performance - and the 2 have tremendous chemistry together.
They are joined by a bevy of wonderful character actors - Ray Walston, Richard "Jaws" Kiel, Ned Beatty, Clifton James, Valerie Curtin, Fred Willard and the great Scatman Crothers. All bring life and energy to this film. Patrick McGoohan is perfectly cast as the villain of the piece. His "buttoned-up" bad guy is the perfect balance to the Wilder's character.
But, of course, the person who steals this film is the great Richard Pryor as Grover T. Muldoon, a petty thief, con-man and "street-wise" hood who aids George in defeating the bad guys. Pryor doesn't show up in this movie until about 1/2 way through, but when he does, the energy (and pace) of this film picks up considerably and the roller coaster ride begins. The comedic partnership between Wilder and Pryor is magnificent, they play off each other very well and they will end up pairing together in 3 other films after this.
Director Arthur Hiller (THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY) does a strong, professional job of keeping the movie moving, keeping events grounded until a thrilling conclusion that is satisfying, indeed.
A fun action-thriller that is perfect summer fodder.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Planet 51 (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
On a planet far from our own, green creatures are experiencing their own version of the 1950’s. Among them is Lem (Justin Long) who has just gotten his first job as an assistant at the local planetarium. When a space ship appears harboring an alien, human astronaut Captain Charles T. Baker (Dwayne Johnson), the fearful locals are not so friendly. It is up to Lem to save the astronaut and help his people learn not to fear the world beyond what they know.
The film is written for both children and adults, like a toned down version of “Shrek†with a more relevant moral feel. Putting the characters in the 1950s adds to the film’s charm, allowing kids access to the blatant characterizations of the time period, such as the bumbling science professor and the hippy protestor who maintains from the start that the alien is friendly.
Other characters of note are Lem’s comic book and movie fanatic best friend, Skiff (Seann William Scott) and the military commander General Grawl (Gary Oldman) who is hell-bent on capturing the alien. Children will also enjoy the two pet creatures from a local alien dog that excretes acid to a rock-obsessed robot sent to pick up local specimens for Baker.
“Planet 51†is wholly entertaining. It provides some mature insight by displaying how we would appear to another culture if we ever did encounter aliens. This switch of perspective is sure to make children think and laugh over the simple cross-cultural mishaps that occur while Lem and Baker are attempting to find common ground.
A delightful, animated romp, “Planet 51†will make you hope for a groovy 1960’s sequel.
The film is written for both children and adults, like a toned down version of “Shrek†with a more relevant moral feel. Putting the characters in the 1950s adds to the film’s charm, allowing kids access to the blatant characterizations of the time period, such as the bumbling science professor and the hippy protestor who maintains from the start that the alien is friendly.
Other characters of note are Lem’s comic book and movie fanatic best friend, Skiff (Seann William Scott) and the military commander General Grawl (Gary Oldman) who is hell-bent on capturing the alien. Children will also enjoy the two pet creatures from a local alien dog that excretes acid to a rock-obsessed robot sent to pick up local specimens for Baker.
“Planet 51†is wholly entertaining. It provides some mature insight by displaying how we would appear to another culture if we ever did encounter aliens. This switch of perspective is sure to make children think and laugh over the simple cross-cultural mishaps that occur while Lem and Baker are attempting to find common ground.
A delightful, animated romp, “Planet 51†will make you hope for a groovy 1960’s sequel.
Show Dog: The Charmed Life and Trying Times of a Near-Perfect Purebred
Book
By spending a year alongside rising star Jack, a champion Australian Shepherd, and his friends,...
AM
A Middle-Earth Traveller: Sketches from Bag End to Mordor
Book
Let acclaimed Tolkien artist John Howe take you on an unforgettable journey across Middle-earth,...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Abducted in Plain Sight (2017) in Movies
Apr 8, 2021
Now this one has to be seen to be believed! It is a short documentary film of about 90 minutes, not a series, but it plays like a longer episode of a series – except by the end there is no more to tell. In and out, thankfully! It is the story of Jan Broberg, a relatively successful Hollywood supporting actress, who wrote a book about her abduction by a close family friend when she was a child in the 70s. As the story unfolds, especially if you are a parent yourself, you will be screaming at the screen in total disbelief and indignation every ten minutes, and twice as loud at the end!
I can’t go into the details without ruining it, but suffice to say that the series of events is one of the strangest stories, fact or fiction, that I have ever heard! The audacity and total manipulation of the offender, in conjunction with the insane naivety of Jan and her parents is mind-blowing! How he got away with it in any way for longer than a day is unfathomable enough, but this was abuse that went on unpunished for years. Is it the bible belt attitude to blame? I am… still… scratching my head on this one! How did these events and crimes ever happen? Just, wow! Do yourself a favour if you want to be shocked and have a good rant at the TV, watch this and see for yourself.
I can’t go into the details without ruining it, but suffice to say that the series of events is one of the strangest stories, fact or fiction, that I have ever heard! The audacity and total manipulation of the offender, in conjunction with the insane naivety of Jan and her parents is mind-blowing! How he got away with it in any way for longer than a day is unfathomable enough, but this was abuse that went on unpunished for years. Is it the bible belt attitude to blame? I am… still… scratching my head on this one! How did these events and crimes ever happen? Just, wow! Do yourself a favour if you want to be shocked and have a good rant at the TV, watch this and see for yourself.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The God Game in Books
Nov 7, 2019
While browsing Facebook one day, I came across a book entitled The God Game by Danny Tobey. I was intrigued, so I decided to read more about it. After reading the synopsis, this book reeled me in. I decided to give it a read, and I am very glad I did. The God Game has become one of my favorite reads so far.
With the way the digital age is going, the plot of The God Game sounded like it could already be happening in real life. A bunch of teens decide to play a random game with what they suspect is just some kind of artificial intelligence. However, when God (the AI in The God Game) starts asking them to do some highly illegal and dangerous activities as well as activities that make the teens question their morality, they start to think that maybe they are in over their heads. Will the teens be able to quit the game or will death be the only way out? Don't get me wrong. The plot has been done before, but Danny Tobey put his own original spin on the idea and made it where it comes across as a fresh idea. As I mentioned earlier, The God Game comes across as being very realistic. While I feel that there are no major plot twists and that the book is fairly predictable in some places, The God Game is still a highly entertaining read. Tobey gives his readers enough information at the end of the book to leave them satisfied, but he still leaves it somewhat open ended for a possible sequel.
The God Game flowed very smoothly, and I felt like the pacing was perfect. Not once did I feel like the book became too dull or that it was going to fast. The transitions between chapters was very spot on which made The God Game an easy read for me. It was so easy to lose myself in this novel as I became completely immersed in the world Tobey had created.
A couple of things that kind of bothered me, and they seem to be more personal preference than a fault with the story, is the mentions of politics and how anti-God/Christianity The God Game seemed to be. I'm not a political person by any means. In fact, I don't lean one way or the other when it comes to politics. However, I felt like politics were mentioned way too much in this book. It's very obvious that the author is very anti-Trump. If I wanted to read a book about politics, I'd read a political thriller or something similar. I didn't like how this book seems to poke fun at those that believe in God. It comes across as if the author is trying to challenge the beliefs of those who believe in God. I get that The God Game has God in its title and is about an AI that believes it's God, but I felt that the way the author speaks about God came off as a bit crass. However, those were minor issues for me, and I still enjoyed reading The God Game very much.
I felt that all of the main and supporting characters in The God Game were written superbly. The God Game had such a diverse group of characters throughout which was refreshing to see. I enjoyed reading about Charlie and his thoughts. He seemed conflicted the most with everything that was happening. It was great to read about how much he cared about his friends as well as other people. Charlie came across as a stand up guy. Vanhi was my favorite character. She was such a badass that I couldn't help but to love her! I felt like she was the second most conflicted character. I just felt sorry for what Alex was going through. My heart ached for him. Kenny was a great character too, and it was interesting what the game would ask him to do. I never quite knew what to make of Peter. He was written well, and he came across as very charismatic which made me suspicious of him throughout the whole novel. I did admire how much he would throw himself into something though.
Trigger warnings for The God Game include violence, profanity, drug use, politics, challenging the existence of God, racism, sexual situations (although not graphic), and murder.
Overall, The God Game is a highly thrilling read. With such an interesting cast of characters as well as a highly thought provoking plot, I wouldn't be surprised if The God Game became one of the most sought after books of 2020. It would also make a great film. I would definitely recommend The God Game by Danny Tobey to those aged 16+ who love thrilling plots that really make you think. Give The God Game a read. It will sink its teeth in you from the very first page!
--
(A special thank you to St. Martin's Press for providing me with a paperback ARC of The God Game by Danny Tobey in exchange for an unbiased and honest review.)
With the way the digital age is going, the plot of The God Game sounded like it could already be happening in real life. A bunch of teens decide to play a random game with what they suspect is just some kind of artificial intelligence. However, when God (the AI in The God Game) starts asking them to do some highly illegal and dangerous activities as well as activities that make the teens question their morality, they start to think that maybe they are in over their heads. Will the teens be able to quit the game or will death be the only way out? Don't get me wrong. The plot has been done before, but Danny Tobey put his own original spin on the idea and made it where it comes across as a fresh idea. As I mentioned earlier, The God Game comes across as being very realistic. While I feel that there are no major plot twists and that the book is fairly predictable in some places, The God Game is still a highly entertaining read. Tobey gives his readers enough information at the end of the book to leave them satisfied, but he still leaves it somewhat open ended for a possible sequel.
The God Game flowed very smoothly, and I felt like the pacing was perfect. Not once did I feel like the book became too dull or that it was going to fast. The transitions between chapters was very spot on which made The God Game an easy read for me. It was so easy to lose myself in this novel as I became completely immersed in the world Tobey had created.
A couple of things that kind of bothered me, and they seem to be more personal preference than a fault with the story, is the mentions of politics and how anti-God/Christianity The God Game seemed to be. I'm not a political person by any means. In fact, I don't lean one way or the other when it comes to politics. However, I felt like politics were mentioned way too much in this book. It's very obvious that the author is very anti-Trump. If I wanted to read a book about politics, I'd read a political thriller or something similar. I didn't like how this book seems to poke fun at those that believe in God. It comes across as if the author is trying to challenge the beliefs of those who believe in God. I get that The God Game has God in its title and is about an AI that believes it's God, but I felt that the way the author speaks about God came off as a bit crass. However, those were minor issues for me, and I still enjoyed reading The God Game very much.
I felt that all of the main and supporting characters in The God Game were written superbly. The God Game had such a diverse group of characters throughout which was refreshing to see. I enjoyed reading about Charlie and his thoughts. He seemed conflicted the most with everything that was happening. It was great to read about how much he cared about his friends as well as other people. Charlie came across as a stand up guy. Vanhi was my favorite character. She was such a badass that I couldn't help but to love her! I felt like she was the second most conflicted character. I just felt sorry for what Alex was going through. My heart ached for him. Kenny was a great character too, and it was interesting what the game would ask him to do. I never quite knew what to make of Peter. He was written well, and he came across as very charismatic which made me suspicious of him throughout the whole novel. I did admire how much he would throw himself into something though.
Trigger warnings for The God Game include violence, profanity, drug use, politics, challenging the existence of God, racism, sexual situations (although not graphic), and murder.
Overall, The God Game is a highly thrilling read. With such an interesting cast of characters as well as a highly thought provoking plot, I wouldn't be surprised if The God Game became one of the most sought after books of 2020. It would also make a great film. I would definitely recommend The God Game by Danny Tobey to those aged 16+ who love thrilling plots that really make you think. Give The God Game a read. It will sink its teeth in you from the very first page!
--
(A special thank you to St. Martin's Press for providing me with a paperback ARC of The God Game by Danny Tobey in exchange for an unbiased and honest review.)
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) Feb 10, 2021