Search
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Shuffle Grand Prix in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019 (Updated Jun 12, 2019)
I very rarely reference video games in my reviews. Mostly because I have never really been a big video gamer. I was always more into RPG style video games (Final Fantasy XI ftw), but some styles of video games I also enjoyed quite a bit. Among those were the battle racing style games of Crash Team Racing and Mario Kart. So much fun not only to race to the finish but also to plant traps and equip weapons to slow your opponents’ progress. Such is your plight as you play Shuffle Grand Prix by new-to-the-board-game-scene publisher Games by Bicycle.
DISCLAIMER: While I will not be delving completely into the rulebook and describing every rule and scenario, I will give you a good idea of how the game plays and what I think of it. -T
Okay let’s setup this game in our minds. Shuffle the large deck of Distance Cards (in denominations of 25, 50, 75, and 100 distance) to form a draw deck. Each player will draft a team of racer and co-pilot, which means taking the racer’s deck and co-pilot’s deck to form their team. Each pilot is a different character with different decks and different special abilities that can be used throughout the game. For example, my first team was the wizard and the musician. Place the driver’s character card on top of the wheel (health) card at maximum wheel strength, and tuck the co-pilot’s card underneath them. You cannot use the co-pilot’s ability until they become the driver (when your main pilot spins out due to your opponents and their dastardly play). Now shuffle the driver’s and co-pilot’s decks together (a la Smash Up) to form your personal draw deck, draw three cards, and you are ready to begin!
On your turn you will flip over the top Distance Card and place it in front of yourself. This is how far you have driven this turn, and ultimately is your VP stack. From there you may play cards from your hand to affect your own cards, the cards of your opponents, or place traps. You may equip items to your car (max 2), switch out equipment, or pass your turn ? This structure continues until there are no more Distance Cards to draw, then the game ends and you count Distance to see who is the winner! I have intentionally left some rules out because they are fun to discover and play – like making your opponent spin out (for trophies), nerfing your opponents, card combo play, etc.
Components: this game is relatively light on components as it is a large number of playing cards and a collection of trophy chits. The chits are good quality, and were definitely too numerous for our plays. The cards are of great quality, which is what you expect from Bicycle, the playing card giant. The art in this game is VERY quirky. I wouldn’t say the art is amazing, but it’s fun and fits the theme. Think Munchkin art. In fact, think of this game as a whole as a combination of CTR/Mario Kart meets Munchkin.
Overall, I really dig this game. It’s pretty fast-playing, though those AP-prone players will hold up the game a bit on their turns. The rules are light, the game play is really fun, and the flavor text on the cards is quite humorous. I thought out loud as we were playing that this is a replacement for Munchkin for me, and I like Munchkin a lot. The take-that/screw-your-neighbor aspect is certainly there, but even when you pile on it doesn’t seem to slow you down so much that you can no longer do much on your turn. I appreciate that. The eight provided playable character decks feels like I can play this game for a really long time with different combinations and enjoy it each time. So for the ease of play, enjoyment of play, different combos we are excited to try, and absolute silliness, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a bashin’ 14 / 18. Check it out!
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/shuffle-grand-prix-review/
DISCLAIMER: While I will not be delving completely into the rulebook and describing every rule and scenario, I will give you a good idea of how the game plays and what I think of it. -T
Okay let’s setup this game in our minds. Shuffle the large deck of Distance Cards (in denominations of 25, 50, 75, and 100 distance) to form a draw deck. Each player will draft a team of racer and co-pilot, which means taking the racer’s deck and co-pilot’s deck to form their team. Each pilot is a different character with different decks and different special abilities that can be used throughout the game. For example, my first team was the wizard and the musician. Place the driver’s character card on top of the wheel (health) card at maximum wheel strength, and tuck the co-pilot’s card underneath them. You cannot use the co-pilot’s ability until they become the driver (when your main pilot spins out due to your opponents and their dastardly play). Now shuffle the driver’s and co-pilot’s decks together (a la Smash Up) to form your personal draw deck, draw three cards, and you are ready to begin!
On your turn you will flip over the top Distance Card and place it in front of yourself. This is how far you have driven this turn, and ultimately is your VP stack. From there you may play cards from your hand to affect your own cards, the cards of your opponents, or place traps. You may equip items to your car (max 2), switch out equipment, or pass your turn ? This structure continues until there are no more Distance Cards to draw, then the game ends and you count Distance to see who is the winner! I have intentionally left some rules out because they are fun to discover and play – like making your opponent spin out (for trophies), nerfing your opponents, card combo play, etc.
Components: this game is relatively light on components as it is a large number of playing cards and a collection of trophy chits. The chits are good quality, and were definitely too numerous for our plays. The cards are of great quality, which is what you expect from Bicycle, the playing card giant. The art in this game is VERY quirky. I wouldn’t say the art is amazing, but it’s fun and fits the theme. Think Munchkin art. In fact, think of this game as a whole as a combination of CTR/Mario Kart meets Munchkin.
Overall, I really dig this game. It’s pretty fast-playing, though those AP-prone players will hold up the game a bit on their turns. The rules are light, the game play is really fun, and the flavor text on the cards is quite humorous. I thought out loud as we were playing that this is a replacement for Munchkin for me, and I like Munchkin a lot. The take-that/screw-your-neighbor aspect is certainly there, but even when you pile on it doesn’t seem to slow you down so much that you can no longer do much on your turn. I appreciate that. The eight provided playable character decks feels like I can play this game for a really long time with different combinations and enjoy it each time. So for the ease of play, enjoyment of play, different combos we are excited to try, and absolute silliness, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a bashin’ 14 / 18. Check it out!
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/shuffle-grand-prix-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Promising Young Woman (2020) in Movies
Apr 20, 2021
Writing and directing is pitch perfect (1 more)
Carey Mulligan - awesome acting
Emerald Fennell delivers a real ‘page turner’ of a movie
"Promising Young Woman" sees Cassie (Carrie Mulligan) out to wage war on predatory men sexually asserting themselves on vulnerable woman in bars. But with the chance mention of a name, her mission takes on a whole new level and becomes very personal. How far will Carrie go to right a wrong?
Positives:
- Where to start! This is an astonishingly engrossing story from the multi-talented Emerald Fennell. It's rare to find a movie script where you have no idea in which direction the plot will take you. Some of the twists in this movie (no spoilers) are quite Hitchcockian in their execution. And Fennell cocks a wonderful snook at the 'Hollywood ending' that takes your breath away.
- Fennell also directs superbly, never letting the viewer get bored for an instant (the film doesn't outstay its welcome at only 113 minutes). The "show don't tell" approach shows respect for the audience's intelligence. (What happened after the boozy lunch? Who's voice was it on the video?) The use of 'chapter headings' as well is clever and reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino.
- And Carrie Mulligan! A simply stunning performance. What WAS that 'Variety' critic on about in saying she was "not hot enough" to play this role? Had he not fed his Guide Dog or something that day? Mulligan first drew my attention and respect when she was just 20 years old playing Ada in the BBC's "Bleak House": she had "star" written all over her. And so it has proved. Arguably - since there are so many stunning performances on her CV - this is a career best for her.
- Again reminiscent of Tarantino (and indeed "Killing Eve") is the wonderful use of music (by Anthony Willis). As well as some deliciously 'bubblegum' tracks (for example, one by Paris Hilton) there are some seriously "out there" choices. For example, "Pearl's Dream" (about the "pretty fly") is taken from the 1955 movie "The Night of the Hunter". It's haunting and evocative, reflecting the shattering revelation for Cassie within the story.
- Hair and Make-up (Angela Wells), Costume (Nancy Steiner), Cinematography (Benjamin Kracun), Editing (Frédéric Thoraval): all top-notch.
Negatives:
- For once, not a single one!
Summary Thoughts:
Sex without consent is rape. A woman, intoxicated through drink or drugs, cannot give consent. The rules aren't difficult are they? Anyone who's been to a city centre bar or nightclub late at night will have seen - or suspected they've seen - this sort of slow-motion car crash in progress.
This movie will inevitably be seen as the 'poster-child' for this aspect of the "Me Too" movement, and rightly so. And because the movie is so fabulous, it is inevitably going to have a positive effect in highlighting the issue.
Those woman who have had these experiences (and I'm sure there are a LOT of them out there, many of who will have never gone to the police) will probably not want to be further traumatised by watching the movie. But, for everyone else. If the first five minutes make you feel queasily like "this one's not for me" then it's worth sticking with it. it's all done in good taste.
One of the reasons this movie is so good is because of Emerald Fennell. What a talent she is! In acting mode, she plays Sarah Ferguson in "The Crown" and - in an uncredited cameo - the "blow job make-up" video blog lady in this. In writing mode, she's delivered the brilliant BAFTA-winning script for this as well as series two of "Killing Eve". And now in directing mode, she delivers this stunning directorial debut. She's even writing a musical version of "Cinderella" with Andrew Lloyd-Webber! (Come on love, you're just making us all feel wholly inadequate!)
"Promising Young Woman" is the easiest 10* movie I've rated in a while. And it soars straight to the top of my current long-list for my "Films of the Year 2021".
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/20/promising-young-woman-emerald-fennell-delivers-a-real-page-turner-of-a-movie/. Thanks).
Positives:
- Where to start! This is an astonishingly engrossing story from the multi-talented Emerald Fennell. It's rare to find a movie script where you have no idea in which direction the plot will take you. Some of the twists in this movie (no spoilers) are quite Hitchcockian in their execution. And Fennell cocks a wonderful snook at the 'Hollywood ending' that takes your breath away.
- Fennell also directs superbly, never letting the viewer get bored for an instant (the film doesn't outstay its welcome at only 113 minutes). The "show don't tell" approach shows respect for the audience's intelligence. (What happened after the boozy lunch? Who's voice was it on the video?) The use of 'chapter headings' as well is clever and reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino.
- And Carrie Mulligan! A simply stunning performance. What WAS that 'Variety' critic on about in saying she was "not hot enough" to play this role? Had he not fed his Guide Dog or something that day? Mulligan first drew my attention and respect when she was just 20 years old playing Ada in the BBC's "Bleak House": she had "star" written all over her. And so it has proved. Arguably - since there are so many stunning performances on her CV - this is a career best for her.
- Again reminiscent of Tarantino (and indeed "Killing Eve") is the wonderful use of music (by Anthony Willis). As well as some deliciously 'bubblegum' tracks (for example, one by Paris Hilton) there are some seriously "out there" choices. For example, "Pearl's Dream" (about the "pretty fly") is taken from the 1955 movie "The Night of the Hunter". It's haunting and evocative, reflecting the shattering revelation for Cassie within the story.
- Hair and Make-up (Angela Wells), Costume (Nancy Steiner), Cinematography (Benjamin Kracun), Editing (Frédéric Thoraval): all top-notch.
Negatives:
- For once, not a single one!
Summary Thoughts:
Sex without consent is rape. A woman, intoxicated through drink or drugs, cannot give consent. The rules aren't difficult are they? Anyone who's been to a city centre bar or nightclub late at night will have seen - or suspected they've seen - this sort of slow-motion car crash in progress.
This movie will inevitably be seen as the 'poster-child' for this aspect of the "Me Too" movement, and rightly so. And because the movie is so fabulous, it is inevitably going to have a positive effect in highlighting the issue.
Those woman who have had these experiences (and I'm sure there are a LOT of them out there, many of who will have never gone to the police) will probably not want to be further traumatised by watching the movie. But, for everyone else. If the first five minutes make you feel queasily like "this one's not for me" then it's worth sticking with it. it's all done in good taste.
One of the reasons this movie is so good is because of Emerald Fennell. What a talent she is! In acting mode, she plays Sarah Ferguson in "The Crown" and - in an uncredited cameo - the "blow job make-up" video blog lady in this. In writing mode, she's delivered the brilliant BAFTA-winning script for this as well as series two of "Killing Eve". And now in directing mode, she delivers this stunning directorial debut. She's even writing a musical version of "Cinderella" with Andrew Lloyd-Webber! (Come on love, you're just making us all feel wholly inadequate!)
"Promising Young Woman" is the easiest 10* movie I've rated in a while. And it soars straight to the top of my current long-list for my "Films of the Year 2021".
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/20/promising-young-woman-emerald-fennell-delivers-a-real-page-turner-of-a-movie/. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Well multiversed.
In the latest Marvel film (notably now available with the snazzy new Marvel production logo at the start) Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”) plays the titular hero: a neurosurgeon with exceptional skills, an encyclopedic knowledge of discographies and an ego to rival Donald Trump.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Nineteen Minutes in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>Your son says the bullying was unbearable. But his revenge was murder. What would you do?
Nineteen Minutes</i> is perhaps Jodi Picoult’s most controversial novel, as well as one of the longest. Lots of things can happen in nineteen minutes including a school shooting resulting in the deaths of ten people. This is what happens at the beginning of this book, leaving hundreds of teachers and students emotionally scarred for the remainder of their lives. Picoult explores the reactions of a community who’s ideas of safety have been shattered, the grief of the victims and their families and, perhaps most importantly, the heartache of the parents of the shooter.
Seventeen-year-old Peter Houghton has had enough of the bullying that he has endured throughout his entire school life. He has no friends, is constantly miserable, possibly suicidal, and so, on a typical morning in March 2007 he decides permanently fix the situation, unthinking of the consequences. But why did he go to such extremes? What circumstances in his life led to firing a gun as the only solution?
As the evidence is gathered in the lead up to the court trial, many key characters question their own involvement in Peter’s life. Firstly there is Josie Cormier, a straight-A student who swapped her childhood friendship with Peter for popularity and her boyfriend Matt, a particularly aggressive bully. Secondly there is Alex Cormier, Josie’s mother, who destroyed her friendship with Peter’s mother after finding their five-year-old children playing with guns in the Houghton’s basement.
If Peter’s father had never owned a selection of hunting rifles, would Peter ever have thought of guns as a way out of his predicament? On the other hand, Lacy Houghton blames herself for not noticing how badly her son was suffering, not just at school, but at home as well, where he had to live up to the memory of his saint-like older brother who died in a car crash the previous year.
Naturally a tragic event such as this changes people, however not always in a negative way. Relationships begin to blossom as characters realize how close they were to losing the ones they love. Alex takes a step back from her demanding job to comfort Josie in the aftermath, thus feeling closer to her than she ever has done before. Alex, a single mother, also opens herself up to a romantic relationship, something she has had no time to seriously consider up until now.
All the while, Defense Attorney Jordan McAfee, who some readers may remember from <i>Salem Falls</i>, fights a losing battle to get Peter acquitted, by arguing and prying into Peter’s emotions to discover his reason for committing murder.
What I like about Picoult’s novels is that there is a lot more to it than a simple storyline. While the story plays out and plot twists happen, the reader is learning something new. In <i>Nineteen Minutes</i> Picoult provides insight into midwifery, psychology and economics – things that are not synonymous with the shootings.
Readers will constantly question whose side of the story they are on. Hundreds of people grow up being bullied and will understand how Peter was feeling; yet they would not pick up a gun. Likewise, by putting themselves in the shoes of the victims readers will think about how they would feel in the same situation. However would anyone be willing to admit that they made someone else’s life a living hell? There is no simple conclusion to <i>Nineteen Minutes</i>; someone will always lose. Nevertheless, Picoult’s fantastic writing skills provide an enthralling story of love and loss.
I cannot recommend this book to readers in general due to the nature of the themes found in the story. Gun crime and school shootings are sadly still an occurrence in the present time, particularly in America, therefore there are thousands of people who have been affected by such an event, whether directly or indirectly as part of a local community. Some readers may find <i>Nineteen Minutes</i> challenging and upsetting, which is why I am not going to encourage everyone to read this book. However, Picoult has excelled herself with this novel and it would be a shame for people not to read it. Fans will not be disappointed with her writing and will love all her characters, possibly even Peter!
Nineteen Minutes</i> is perhaps Jodi Picoult’s most controversial novel, as well as one of the longest. Lots of things can happen in nineteen minutes including a school shooting resulting in the deaths of ten people. This is what happens at the beginning of this book, leaving hundreds of teachers and students emotionally scarred for the remainder of their lives. Picoult explores the reactions of a community who’s ideas of safety have been shattered, the grief of the victims and their families and, perhaps most importantly, the heartache of the parents of the shooter.
Seventeen-year-old Peter Houghton has had enough of the bullying that he has endured throughout his entire school life. He has no friends, is constantly miserable, possibly suicidal, and so, on a typical morning in March 2007 he decides permanently fix the situation, unthinking of the consequences. But why did he go to such extremes? What circumstances in his life led to firing a gun as the only solution?
As the evidence is gathered in the lead up to the court trial, many key characters question their own involvement in Peter’s life. Firstly there is Josie Cormier, a straight-A student who swapped her childhood friendship with Peter for popularity and her boyfriend Matt, a particularly aggressive bully. Secondly there is Alex Cormier, Josie’s mother, who destroyed her friendship with Peter’s mother after finding their five-year-old children playing with guns in the Houghton’s basement.
If Peter’s father had never owned a selection of hunting rifles, would Peter ever have thought of guns as a way out of his predicament? On the other hand, Lacy Houghton blames herself for not noticing how badly her son was suffering, not just at school, but at home as well, where he had to live up to the memory of his saint-like older brother who died in a car crash the previous year.
Naturally a tragic event such as this changes people, however not always in a negative way. Relationships begin to blossom as characters realize how close they were to losing the ones they love. Alex takes a step back from her demanding job to comfort Josie in the aftermath, thus feeling closer to her than she ever has done before. Alex, a single mother, also opens herself up to a romantic relationship, something she has had no time to seriously consider up until now.
All the while, Defense Attorney Jordan McAfee, who some readers may remember from <i>Salem Falls</i>, fights a losing battle to get Peter acquitted, by arguing and prying into Peter’s emotions to discover his reason for committing murder.
What I like about Picoult’s novels is that there is a lot more to it than a simple storyline. While the story plays out and plot twists happen, the reader is learning something new. In <i>Nineteen Minutes</i> Picoult provides insight into midwifery, psychology and economics – things that are not synonymous with the shootings.
Readers will constantly question whose side of the story they are on. Hundreds of people grow up being bullied and will understand how Peter was feeling; yet they would not pick up a gun. Likewise, by putting themselves in the shoes of the victims readers will think about how they would feel in the same situation. However would anyone be willing to admit that they made someone else’s life a living hell? There is no simple conclusion to <i>Nineteen Minutes</i>; someone will always lose. Nevertheless, Picoult’s fantastic writing skills provide an enthralling story of love and loss.
I cannot recommend this book to readers in general due to the nature of the themes found in the story. Gun crime and school shootings are sadly still an occurrence in the present time, particularly in America, therefore there are thousands of people who have been affected by such an event, whether directly or indirectly as part of a local community. Some readers may find <i>Nineteen Minutes</i> challenging and upsetting, which is why I am not going to encourage everyone to read this book. However, Picoult has excelled herself with this novel and it would be a shame for people not to read it. Fans will not be disappointed with her writing and will love all her characters, possibly even Peter!
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Alice in Zombieland - White Rabbit Chronicles in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog at <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I've been dying to read this book since I first heard about it months ago. I love zombies because, well, zombies are just so darn cool! However, I think I built myself up a bit too much and bought in to the hype a bit too much. I didn't think the book was bad, but I didn't think it was that great either.
Alice, or Ali for short, thinks her father is crazy. He has so many rules when it comes to his daughters, especially things that involve go out during the night. He's worried about the monsters, but Alice just thinks he's going insane until one night, her whole family is killed in a car crash. It is then that she sees her first monster. Maybe her dad wasn't crazy after all. Alice will have to enlist the help of the school's bad crowd if she wants answers, and that means getting close to Cole Holland, the resident bad boy. Will Alice have her heart broken? Will she even be able to survive long enough to have her heart broken?
Okay, I absolutely, positively love, love, love the title of this book: Alice in Zombieland. It just has a certain ring to it. I'd say the title definitely describes the story. If I were to sum up this book in three words, Alice in Zombieland would be exactly what I'd say.
I do think the cover is pretty, but I feel that it's lacking. I do love the little details there are to see when you look closer at the cover, but as I said, something is missing from the cover. I think it would've been cool, maybe, to have a few zombies on the cover as well.
The world building is fantastic! Gena Showalter makes it feel as if a zombie apocalypse is actually happening or really could happen. It's so easy to get lost in Alice's world and forget that you're actually just reading a story. The author makes the world of zombies come to life, and it does get a bit scary.
The pacing is what really bothered me. I felt as if it was a bit all over the place. At the very beginning, I felt I was losing the will to live as the pacing was so slow. Then it got a bit better, then it'd get slow, then it'd get better again. My interest in this book was all over the place. I never knew what to expect in the next chapter. Was it going to be super slow or fast paced?
The dialogue was believable for the teenagers. They spoke exactly how I'd imagine teens of today to speak. However, Alice has a seven year old sister who spoke like she was at least thirteen years old. Her vocabulary, and the way she spoke were definitely not normal for a seven year old. With that said, I did enjoy the dialogue immensely especially when it came to interactions between Kat and Alice. I even loved the sarcastic interactions between Cole and Alice. There wasn't any swearing in this book which I admired.
I thought the characters were fantastic and very believable. I loved how Alice was willing to do whatever it took to avenge her family and how she wasn't willing to take anything from anybody. Cole is your typical bad boy: moody, snarly, sarcastic, etc. There is something likable about Cole, and as the story progresses, we find out a little bit about why Cole is the way he is. My favourite character had to be Kat though. I loved her witty and sarcastic sense of humour. In fact, I wish I could be like Kat. She definitely had me laughing quite a bit. The only non-believable character was Alice's little sister Emma. As stated in the previous paragraph, she didn't speak like a normal seven year old, nor did she act like an everyday seven year old. Because of that, I had a hard time relating to her as a character.
One thing I really loved about this book was the chapter names. I loved how they were zombie related but still had the Alice in Wonderland feel about them. Unfortunately, this was not enough to warrant a higher rating for this book. Perhaps it's just me though as this book does have quite high reviews, but I just couldn't enjoy it that much. I might carry on with the series in the hopes it gets better, but I'm not dying to read the next book in the series.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ if I really had to recommend it. However, I'd say don't waste your money. Rent it from a library or borrow it if you really want to read it.
Alice in Zombieland (The White Rabbit Chronicles #1) by Gena Showalter gets a 3.25 out of 5 from me.
I've been dying to read this book since I first heard about it months ago. I love zombies because, well, zombies are just so darn cool! However, I think I built myself up a bit too much and bought in to the hype a bit too much. I didn't think the book was bad, but I didn't think it was that great either.
Alice, or Ali for short, thinks her father is crazy. He has so many rules when it comes to his daughters, especially things that involve go out during the night. He's worried about the monsters, but Alice just thinks he's going insane until one night, her whole family is killed in a car crash. It is then that she sees her first monster. Maybe her dad wasn't crazy after all. Alice will have to enlist the help of the school's bad crowd if she wants answers, and that means getting close to Cole Holland, the resident bad boy. Will Alice have her heart broken? Will she even be able to survive long enough to have her heart broken?
Okay, I absolutely, positively love, love, love the title of this book: Alice in Zombieland. It just has a certain ring to it. I'd say the title definitely describes the story. If I were to sum up this book in three words, Alice in Zombieland would be exactly what I'd say.
I do think the cover is pretty, but I feel that it's lacking. I do love the little details there are to see when you look closer at the cover, but as I said, something is missing from the cover. I think it would've been cool, maybe, to have a few zombies on the cover as well.
The world building is fantastic! Gena Showalter makes it feel as if a zombie apocalypse is actually happening or really could happen. It's so easy to get lost in Alice's world and forget that you're actually just reading a story. The author makes the world of zombies come to life, and it does get a bit scary.
The pacing is what really bothered me. I felt as if it was a bit all over the place. At the very beginning, I felt I was losing the will to live as the pacing was so slow. Then it got a bit better, then it'd get slow, then it'd get better again. My interest in this book was all over the place. I never knew what to expect in the next chapter. Was it going to be super slow or fast paced?
The dialogue was believable for the teenagers. They spoke exactly how I'd imagine teens of today to speak. However, Alice has a seven year old sister who spoke like she was at least thirteen years old. Her vocabulary, and the way she spoke were definitely not normal for a seven year old. With that said, I did enjoy the dialogue immensely especially when it came to interactions between Kat and Alice. I even loved the sarcastic interactions between Cole and Alice. There wasn't any swearing in this book which I admired.
I thought the characters were fantastic and very believable. I loved how Alice was willing to do whatever it took to avenge her family and how she wasn't willing to take anything from anybody. Cole is your typical bad boy: moody, snarly, sarcastic, etc. There is something likable about Cole, and as the story progresses, we find out a little bit about why Cole is the way he is. My favourite character had to be Kat though. I loved her witty and sarcastic sense of humour. In fact, I wish I could be like Kat. She definitely had me laughing quite a bit. The only non-believable character was Alice's little sister Emma. As stated in the previous paragraph, she didn't speak like a normal seven year old, nor did she act like an everyday seven year old. Because of that, I had a hard time relating to her as a character.
One thing I really loved about this book was the chapter names. I loved how they were zombie related but still had the Alice in Wonderland feel about them. Unfortunately, this was not enough to warrant a higher rating for this book. Perhaps it's just me though as this book does have quite high reviews, but I just couldn't enjoy it that much. I might carry on with the series in the hopes it gets better, but I'm not dying to read the next book in the series.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ if I really had to recommend it. However, I'd say don't waste your money. Rent it from a library or borrow it if you really want to read it.
Alice in Zombieland (The White Rabbit Chronicles #1) by Gena Showalter gets a 3.25 out of 5 from me.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jul 24, 2017
The limited cast is great (1 more)
The sound design is amazing
Expect the Unexpected
Contains spoilers, click to show
I remember when the first Cloverfield movie was released, it was made in secret and after the trailer dropped people were really hyped. Then the movie came out and it was okay, but nowhere near as good as the trailer and most people quickly forgot about it and it has kind of faded into obscurity since then, remembered only as an interesting experiment that never really lived up to its full potential. So when a follow up movie set in the same universe was announced at the start of this year, you can imagine the surprise of movie fans. Again this movie was made in secret, not an easy thing to do in this day and age and although it shared a name with the first movie, this isn’t necessarily a sequel or a prequel. This review will contain a spoiler free section then a section where I will spoil the hell out of everything in the movie, but don’t worry I’ll give you fair warning before I do that.
This movie is an example of why sometimes it is better to have a small, focused team of people working on a restrictive budget towards a collective aim and end product, because what we end up with is a concentrated, purposeful film, in which each aspect has been handled with care. First off, this movie has three characters and that’s it, so the performances have to be nothing less than stellar for the piece to work. Luckily they are here. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a young girl called Michelle who has just left her man, however it is when she is driving away that she has a car accident and wakes up in the basement of Howard’s Doomsday bunker, the character played by John Goodman. As the film’s traumatising event unfold, she shows resilience, persistence, tenacity and resourcefulness and she pulls it off in a believable way. John Gallagher Jr plays a man called Emmet who has known John Goodman’s character from before the events of the movie play out. He is the comic relief of the movie, but his character is just as important as the other two and he delivers a spot on performance. However John Goodman’s performance in this film is of a different class, he runs away with the movie and steals every scene he is in. This film is a great reminder of why he is considered one of the great character actors of our time. it is very rare that I will say that an actor is perfect in a role, to be a perfect performance, the character must have no lines or scenes that I dislike, steal every scene that they are in and make me totally forget about the actor playing the part and only see the character that they are portraying. The last person to successfully pull it off was JK Simmons in Whiplash, that is the level of quality that we are talking about here, definitely Goodman’s best performance of the last decade.
The other star of this film is the audio, both the score used and the sound effects are so well timed and effective. The various tracks played throughout mixed with the straight up terrifying noises of simple things in the environment, especially the door of Michelle’s room, which honestly sounds like a woman screaming every time it is opened or closed. Also, I don’t know if John Goodman’s breathing was amplified in any way, but it is terrifying. The editing in this movie is also fantastic, best executed during Michelle’s crash at the start of the movie, the abrupt nature of the scenes and sound effects instantly let you know what kind of ride you are in for, for the next 90 minutes.
Okay, from this point on major plot points and twists will be spoiled, you have been warned.
As the film progresses, we learn that Howard had a daughter called Megan, but Emmet and Michelle suspect that he may have killed his daughter or at least some other young girls, so they hatch a plan to break out. Howard finds evidence of the plan and confronts the pair, Emmett takes the blame and what is one of the most shocking scenes I have seen in cinema, Howard shoots him point blank in the head with a thunderous gunshot. After this, Michelle realises he really is crazy and she has to get out, but he also catches her with evidence of the escape plan and chases her around the bunker. Michelle then kicks acid over him and makes for the exit hatch in a terrifying chase sequence. After she gets out the bunker explodes, but she soon realises she isn’t in the clear yet. A dog like monster chases her around the garden which she runs from, then a large alien ship lifts her up, but just as it is about to devour her, she makes a Molotov cocktail and throws it into the mouth of the beast blowing it up, she then drives away and the movie ends. People have a problem with the end of this movie after Michelle leaves the bunker, but although I will say that the first half is definitely superior, I still enjoyed the ending and overall this is probably my favourite movie of 2016 so far.
This movie is an example of why sometimes it is better to have a small, focused team of people working on a restrictive budget towards a collective aim and end product, because what we end up with is a concentrated, purposeful film, in which each aspect has been handled with care. First off, this movie has three characters and that’s it, so the performances have to be nothing less than stellar for the piece to work. Luckily they are here. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a young girl called Michelle who has just left her man, however it is when she is driving away that she has a car accident and wakes up in the basement of Howard’s Doomsday bunker, the character played by John Goodman. As the film’s traumatising event unfold, she shows resilience, persistence, tenacity and resourcefulness and she pulls it off in a believable way. John Gallagher Jr plays a man called Emmet who has known John Goodman’s character from before the events of the movie play out. He is the comic relief of the movie, but his character is just as important as the other two and he delivers a spot on performance. However John Goodman’s performance in this film is of a different class, he runs away with the movie and steals every scene he is in. This film is a great reminder of why he is considered one of the great character actors of our time. it is very rare that I will say that an actor is perfect in a role, to be a perfect performance, the character must have no lines or scenes that I dislike, steal every scene that they are in and make me totally forget about the actor playing the part and only see the character that they are portraying. The last person to successfully pull it off was JK Simmons in Whiplash, that is the level of quality that we are talking about here, definitely Goodman’s best performance of the last decade.
The other star of this film is the audio, both the score used and the sound effects are so well timed and effective. The various tracks played throughout mixed with the straight up terrifying noises of simple things in the environment, especially the door of Michelle’s room, which honestly sounds like a woman screaming every time it is opened or closed. Also, I don’t know if John Goodman’s breathing was amplified in any way, but it is terrifying. The editing in this movie is also fantastic, best executed during Michelle’s crash at the start of the movie, the abrupt nature of the scenes and sound effects instantly let you know what kind of ride you are in for, for the next 90 minutes.
Okay, from this point on major plot points and twists will be spoiled, you have been warned.
As the film progresses, we learn that Howard had a daughter called Megan, but Emmet and Michelle suspect that he may have killed his daughter or at least some other young girls, so they hatch a plan to break out. Howard finds evidence of the plan and confronts the pair, Emmett takes the blame and what is one of the most shocking scenes I have seen in cinema, Howard shoots him point blank in the head with a thunderous gunshot. After this, Michelle realises he really is crazy and she has to get out, but he also catches her with evidence of the escape plan and chases her around the bunker. Michelle then kicks acid over him and makes for the exit hatch in a terrifying chase sequence. After she gets out the bunker explodes, but she soon realises she isn’t in the clear yet. A dog like monster chases her around the garden which she runs from, then a large alien ship lifts her up, but just as it is about to devour her, she makes a Molotov cocktail and throws it into the mouth of the beast blowing it up, she then drives away and the movie ends. People have a problem with the end of this movie after Michelle leaves the bunker, but although I will say that the first half is definitely superior, I still enjoyed the ending and overall this is probably my favourite movie of 2016 so far.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wordslingers: The Story of Self-Publishing (2021) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
They say that everyone has a book in them. I guess the key question is whether anyone else wants to read it. Such is the subject of this new documentary from A. Brooks Bennett. As a publisher says at one point “Writing a book is a creative act; publishing a book is a business”.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Kids of Appetite in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in Video Games
Jul 25, 2017
Bonus Points - An Example Of The Favoritism Towards Certain Developers In The Gaming Industry, Even When They Don’t Deliver
Zelda: Breath Of The Wild came out last month and it has taken the gaming world by storm. As a non Zelda fan, I am left wondering why this is the case. Why is this Zelda game so revolutionary? I don’t own the game, but I have played the first few hours of it and I have read a good number of reviews on the game. There are a few critics claiming that this game, ‘writes a new chapter in the videogames industry,’ and that it is an, ‘evolution of everything that has come before.’
While I appreciate that this is a well made game and it is doing new things within the Zelda franchise, these statements stick in my throat a little. This isn’t because I don’t agree that this is an impressive game, because it is. Other than the odd frame rate drop, there aren’t many flaws with this game and I did enjoy the few hours that I spent with it, (I had a lend of a friends Switch for the night so I could try the game for myself.)
My problem comes from the fact that this is a well made game that isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done before a million times and frankly been done better. Full disclosure, I have never been a Zelda fan, but I wanted this game to convert me and I’m sorry to say that it didn’t. The purpose of this piece isn’t to attack the Zelda franchise, so you fanboys can put your pitchforks down. What I want to discuss is how when Nintendo do anything that is slightly better than a disaster, it is heralded as the brave new step in video games by a large number of the video game press.
I get it, nostalgia is a powerful lens and most writers in their 30’s grew up playing on Nintendo systems and franchises like Mario and Zelda, but as someone who is around ten years younger and grew up with Playstation, I don’t feel that Nintendo has advanced a great deal since the turn of the millennium and frankly, I don’t see Nintendo as having broken any new ground in the last twenty years.
If games like Breath of the Wild came out on another console, they wouldn’t be lauded as the best thing since sliced bread. In fact they have, it’s called Horizon: Zero Dawn! When Horizon came out it received a positive critical reception and high sales, but no one was writing articles claiming it was the next step in the evolution of video games. Splatoon has been put on a pedestal and has been described as ‘fresh,’ and, ‘unique,’ even though it is nothing more than a dumbed down version of Team Fortress 2 for a younger audience. Super Mario Maker was released in 2015 and it was essentially a $60 level editor. Level editors have been included in other games since forever and no fuss has been made, but when Nintendo sell an entire game based on the concept, it’s hailed as another, ‘triumph by Nintendo.’
When you compare Breath of The Wild to other recent open world games like The Witcher or Skyrim, there is nothing that makes it unique from a design and functionality standpoint. If Breath of The Wild came out in 2008, then sure you could get away with labeling it revolutionary, but in this day and age it isn’t any more special than Horizon or Skyrim.
Let’s look at some of the features that have been called unique in the game. The tower climbing to uncover zones of the map mechanic has been done in the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series’. Using plants for crafting and cooking has been done in Far Cry and Skyrim. Far Cry 2 and Dead Island had degradable weapons. The inventory system is very reminiscent of multiple Ubisoft titles; essentially Breath of The Wild has taken some elements from other games and made something from that within the Zelda universe.
This may sound patronizing, but it honestly isn’t intended that way. I get it, Nintendo fans have had it hard over these last five years, they have had nothing to be proud of since the launch of the Wii and they have had to stand by their console of choice and defend themselves with very little ammo to defend themselves with, but as a result nowadays when anything better than a car crash is released by them it is inflated by a large number of critics in the industry and so Nintendo fans are given a justification for putting their mediocre games on a pedestal. This is why to the rest of the industry it appears that Nintendo fans can’t accept things for the way that they really are and everything is blown so far out of proportion.
Some examples of Nintendo games being blown out of proportion and reviewers being clouded by nostalgia are available to go and check out right now on Metacritic. Zelda: Skyward Sword is currently sitting at a 93, Zelda: Twilight Princess is sitting at a 95 and Metroid: Other M has a 79. All three of these games are recognized as subpar and once the novelty wore off, even the most hardcore of Nintendo fans would agree that these are forgettable, black marks on the respective franchises track records. Not that BOTW isn’t a game for Zelda fans to be proud of, because it is. I can see why this would be people’s game of the year so far and I can see why it could be considered as the best Zelda game, but to someone that isn’t a Zelda fan that praise is meaningless.
In summary, the inflation of mediocrity in the industry has to stop, if we want gaming to improve. If we want to break new ground across the gaming media, these sycophants and apologists living in a false perception of reality have to go. These novelty games that are applauded for simply carrying the title of a beloved franchise, have to stop being praised so highly and given a free pass of any sort of criticism just because of a nostalgic lens.
While I appreciate that this is a well made game and it is doing new things within the Zelda franchise, these statements stick in my throat a little. This isn’t because I don’t agree that this is an impressive game, because it is. Other than the odd frame rate drop, there aren’t many flaws with this game and I did enjoy the few hours that I spent with it, (I had a lend of a friends Switch for the night so I could try the game for myself.)
My problem comes from the fact that this is a well made game that isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done before a million times and frankly been done better. Full disclosure, I have never been a Zelda fan, but I wanted this game to convert me and I’m sorry to say that it didn’t. The purpose of this piece isn’t to attack the Zelda franchise, so you fanboys can put your pitchforks down. What I want to discuss is how when Nintendo do anything that is slightly better than a disaster, it is heralded as the brave new step in video games by a large number of the video game press.
I get it, nostalgia is a powerful lens and most writers in their 30’s grew up playing on Nintendo systems and franchises like Mario and Zelda, but as someone who is around ten years younger and grew up with Playstation, I don’t feel that Nintendo has advanced a great deal since the turn of the millennium and frankly, I don’t see Nintendo as having broken any new ground in the last twenty years.
If games like Breath of the Wild came out on another console, they wouldn’t be lauded as the best thing since sliced bread. In fact they have, it’s called Horizon: Zero Dawn! When Horizon came out it received a positive critical reception and high sales, but no one was writing articles claiming it was the next step in the evolution of video games. Splatoon has been put on a pedestal and has been described as ‘fresh,’ and, ‘unique,’ even though it is nothing more than a dumbed down version of Team Fortress 2 for a younger audience. Super Mario Maker was released in 2015 and it was essentially a $60 level editor. Level editors have been included in other games since forever and no fuss has been made, but when Nintendo sell an entire game based on the concept, it’s hailed as another, ‘triumph by Nintendo.’
When you compare Breath of The Wild to other recent open world games like The Witcher or Skyrim, there is nothing that makes it unique from a design and functionality standpoint. If Breath of The Wild came out in 2008, then sure you could get away with labeling it revolutionary, but in this day and age it isn’t any more special than Horizon or Skyrim.
Let’s look at some of the features that have been called unique in the game. The tower climbing to uncover zones of the map mechanic has been done in the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series’. Using plants for crafting and cooking has been done in Far Cry and Skyrim. Far Cry 2 and Dead Island had degradable weapons. The inventory system is very reminiscent of multiple Ubisoft titles; essentially Breath of The Wild has taken some elements from other games and made something from that within the Zelda universe.
This may sound patronizing, but it honestly isn’t intended that way. I get it, Nintendo fans have had it hard over these last five years, they have had nothing to be proud of since the launch of the Wii and they have had to stand by their console of choice and defend themselves with very little ammo to defend themselves with, but as a result nowadays when anything better than a car crash is released by them it is inflated by a large number of critics in the industry and so Nintendo fans are given a justification for putting their mediocre games on a pedestal. This is why to the rest of the industry it appears that Nintendo fans can’t accept things for the way that they really are and everything is blown so far out of proportion.
Some examples of Nintendo games being blown out of proportion and reviewers being clouded by nostalgia are available to go and check out right now on Metacritic. Zelda: Skyward Sword is currently sitting at a 93, Zelda: Twilight Princess is sitting at a 95 and Metroid: Other M has a 79. All three of these games are recognized as subpar and once the novelty wore off, even the most hardcore of Nintendo fans would agree that these are forgettable, black marks on the respective franchises track records. Not that BOTW isn’t a game for Zelda fans to be proud of, because it is. I can see why this would be people’s game of the year so far and I can see why it could be considered as the best Zelda game, but to someone that isn’t a Zelda fan that praise is meaningless.
In summary, the inflation of mediocrity in the industry has to stop, if we want gaming to improve. If we want to break new ground across the gaming media, these sycophants and apologists living in a false perception of reality have to go. These novelty games that are applauded for simply carrying the title of a beloved franchise, have to stop being praised so highly and given a free pass of any sort of criticism just because of a nostalgic lens.