Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
More of the same
After the phenomenal success of Captain America: Civil War, the multiplexes have calmed down a little; that is until the release of X-Men: Apocalypse next week.
Sandwiched in between these two box-office behemoths is the sequel to Universal Studio’s surprise comedy hit, Bad Neighbours. But does another helping of Seth Rogen and Zac Efron’s adult humour hit the spot?
It’s fair to say that these films have a target audience firmly in mind. The first film was received best by University students and younger men according to box-office analysts and managed to gross a whopping $270m on an $18m budget – a sequel whilst completely unnecessary was as likely as an April shower.
Bad Neighbours 2 follows a very well-worn path, so well-worn in fact that it shoehorns the exact same premise from its predecessor into another 90 minute comedy, with just a few new twists and turns to stop it from being a carbon copy.
So, what are these twists and turns I hear you cry? Well, for one, Zac Efron’s Teddy Sanders is all grown up for one, returning to help Seth Rogen’s Mac, and Rose Byrne’s Kelly face-off against a sorority (instead of a fraternity) – headed by the excellent Chloe Grace Moretz.
Plot wise, that’s about it; in fact there is no plot to speak off and the real highlight in this simple film are the reams and reams of adult gags. The majority of them hit the spot; a brilliantly shot sequence at a college ‘festival’ is absolutely hilarious, and then a few of them don’t – but that’s to be expected in any comedy.
When it comes to the acting, it’s a by-the-numbers affair. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are dependable with the latter’s credentials in the genre expanding by the day. From Bridesmaids to Spy, she’s fast becoming a new comedy star, and there’s no complaint from me there.
Zac Efron is now utterly typecast but I doubt he’ll care if his movies keep packing out cinemas across the world. Despite his usual reliable performances, he’s starting to look a little older than his ‘frat boy’ characters would have you believe and if he can’t shake off that tag, he’ll end up in the bargain bins alongside Tobey Maguire. That’s a shame, as his more serious roles prove he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Elsewhere, Chloe Grace Moretz is the only sorority girl to make an impact and her sweet, if predictable backstory provide Bad Neighbours 2 with its only real sense of emotion.
Overall, Bad Neighbours 2 is a very funny adult comedy despite its lack of plot and the by-the-numbers casting. Returning director Nicholas Stoller has introduced a more female-orientated film that will no doubt pay dividends at the box-office. It definitely wasn’t needed, but as is the case in the film world, money talks.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/14/more-of-the-same-bad-neighbours-2-review/
Sandwiched in between these two box-office behemoths is the sequel to Universal Studio’s surprise comedy hit, Bad Neighbours. But does another helping of Seth Rogen and Zac Efron’s adult humour hit the spot?
It’s fair to say that these films have a target audience firmly in mind. The first film was received best by University students and younger men according to box-office analysts and managed to gross a whopping $270m on an $18m budget – a sequel whilst completely unnecessary was as likely as an April shower.
Bad Neighbours 2 follows a very well-worn path, so well-worn in fact that it shoehorns the exact same premise from its predecessor into another 90 minute comedy, with just a few new twists and turns to stop it from being a carbon copy.
So, what are these twists and turns I hear you cry? Well, for one, Zac Efron’s Teddy Sanders is all grown up for one, returning to help Seth Rogen’s Mac, and Rose Byrne’s Kelly face-off against a sorority (instead of a fraternity) – headed by the excellent Chloe Grace Moretz.
Plot wise, that’s about it; in fact there is no plot to speak off and the real highlight in this simple film are the reams and reams of adult gags. The majority of them hit the spot; a brilliantly shot sequence at a college ‘festival’ is absolutely hilarious, and then a few of them don’t – but that’s to be expected in any comedy.
When it comes to the acting, it’s a by-the-numbers affair. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are dependable with the latter’s credentials in the genre expanding by the day. From Bridesmaids to Spy, she’s fast becoming a new comedy star, and there’s no complaint from me there.
Zac Efron is now utterly typecast but I doubt he’ll care if his movies keep packing out cinemas across the world. Despite his usual reliable performances, he’s starting to look a little older than his ‘frat boy’ characters would have you believe and if he can’t shake off that tag, he’ll end up in the bargain bins alongside Tobey Maguire. That’s a shame, as his more serious roles prove he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Elsewhere, Chloe Grace Moretz is the only sorority girl to make an impact and her sweet, if predictable backstory provide Bad Neighbours 2 with its only real sense of emotion.
Overall, Bad Neighbours 2 is a very funny adult comedy despite its lack of plot and the by-the-numbers casting. Returning director Nicholas Stoller has introduced a more female-orientated film that will no doubt pay dividends at the box-office. It definitely wasn’t needed, but as is the case in the film world, money talks.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/14/more-of-the-same-bad-neighbours-2-review/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Looking at the Stars in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>Looking at the Stars</i> by Jo Cotterill is a beautiful story targeted at older children/young adults. It handles serious themes that most readers would not have, and hopefully never will, deal with.
Amina is thirteen years old living in a country where women have absolutely no power. Prohibited from going to school, she spends her days with her sister, Jenna, weaving baskets and rugs, which they sell to stool holders in the local market. The novel begins with the two girls witnessing the arrival of foreign soldiers. They are overjoyed believing that all their troubles are over now that the liberation has begun. This, however, turns out to be a false hope.
Separated from their family, Amina and Jenna head to a refugee camp where they hope to find their younger sister, Vivie, and even discover information about what has happened to their mother. In order to prevent them from succumbing to despair both on the journey and living in the camp, Amina makes up stories about the stars in the sky – hence the title of the novel.
Amina and Jenna’s personalities are vastly different meaning that the reader should be able to identify with at least one of the girls and place themselves within the story to get a closer feel of what their lives must have been like. It makes us wonder how we would cope ourselves in these situations. Amina is the kind of person who asks questions. She wants to know why things happen and is constantly asking “what if?” Despite being a year younger than Jenna she is the more confident of the two, and it is partly her determination that keeps them alive. Personally, I think I am more like Jenna: quiet, anxious, always wanting to do the right thing. Jenna “just wants everyone to be happy”. Jenna is a realist, whereas Amina is a dreamer.
The storytelling aspect to this novel makes it unique to others in this genre. There are many books that deal with war, refugees and death, but Amina’s stories provide something extra. They are beautiful and bring hope and faith into such as bleak and dangerous setting.
Whilst this story is set in fictional towns in an unnamed country, it is not unlike recent civil wars in Syria and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mostly we are able to distance ourselves from these new stories, because to us they are just that: stories, reports; not something we have to deal with. But this novel, told from the point of view of a thirteen year old girl reveals to us what it is like for the innocent – the thousand of innocents. And even better, it is tells it in a way that children/young adults will understand in order to learn more about what has happened and what is happening in these countries.
I think Looking at the Stars is a brilliant book that is, and I know I have used this word a lot, beautifully told. I definitely recommend it!
Amina is thirteen years old living in a country where women have absolutely no power. Prohibited from going to school, she spends her days with her sister, Jenna, weaving baskets and rugs, which they sell to stool holders in the local market. The novel begins with the two girls witnessing the arrival of foreign soldiers. They are overjoyed believing that all their troubles are over now that the liberation has begun. This, however, turns out to be a false hope.
Separated from their family, Amina and Jenna head to a refugee camp where they hope to find their younger sister, Vivie, and even discover information about what has happened to their mother. In order to prevent them from succumbing to despair both on the journey and living in the camp, Amina makes up stories about the stars in the sky – hence the title of the novel.
Amina and Jenna’s personalities are vastly different meaning that the reader should be able to identify with at least one of the girls and place themselves within the story to get a closer feel of what their lives must have been like. It makes us wonder how we would cope ourselves in these situations. Amina is the kind of person who asks questions. She wants to know why things happen and is constantly asking “what if?” Despite being a year younger than Jenna she is the more confident of the two, and it is partly her determination that keeps them alive. Personally, I think I am more like Jenna: quiet, anxious, always wanting to do the right thing. Jenna “just wants everyone to be happy”. Jenna is a realist, whereas Amina is a dreamer.
The storytelling aspect to this novel makes it unique to others in this genre. There are many books that deal with war, refugees and death, but Amina’s stories provide something extra. They are beautiful and bring hope and faith into such as bleak and dangerous setting.
Whilst this story is set in fictional towns in an unnamed country, it is not unlike recent civil wars in Syria and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mostly we are able to distance ourselves from these new stories, because to us they are just that: stories, reports; not something we have to deal with. But this novel, told from the point of view of a thirteen year old girl reveals to us what it is like for the innocent – the thousand of innocents. And even better, it is tells it in a way that children/young adults will understand in order to learn more about what has happened and what is happening in these countries.
I think Looking at the Stars is a brilliant book that is, and I know I have used this word a lot, beautifully told. I definitely recommend it!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Harriet (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Harriet Tubman was among one of the most significant abolitionists in United States history. This film tells the story of her life where she was born in Maryland as a plantation slave. Named Araminta at “Minty” Ross, she transforms throughout her journey, becoming Harriet Tubman as well as transforming into Moses, the appropriate name for the person who leads.
The story begins after church services where Minty’s husband John Tubman who was a free slave asks the plantation owner to allow Minty to be freed so their children would be born free instead of slaves. The slave owner, Henry Broadess (Mike Marunde played with a gleeful abundance of entitlement) denies the request. This is the spark where Araminta decides to run away to live as a free person.
Minty was known for her “spells” since the accident, where she was hit in the forehead by a thrown weight. The film interprets seizures as her conversation with God. The film uses these spells as her talks with and messages received from God. That is how Harriett’s visions are explained. That she has an ability to know where to go and what to from what she sees when she has an episode.
Harriet had saved herself from slavery. She made it to the State of Pennsylvania where she would be free. After a year or so, Harriet decided that she would not be able to rest comfortably as a “free slave” without her husband and her family. That is when she decided that she would go get her loved ones.
As we know from history, she saved her family and many others through the Underground Railroad. All her rescues were successful, totaling 70 that she brought to freedom. The Civil War began a few years later. We are shown Harriet, working with the Union Army to save the lives of about 700 slaves.
The film celebrates Harriet Tubman and provides a beautiful biographical film of this amazing woman. Cynthia Erivo should get a nomination or two come award season. Pssst, she already has a Tony from her performance of The Color Purple on Broadway and a Grammy. She is already halfway to an EGOT. The cast of the film is fantastic. Leslie Odom Jr. as William Still, the man who kept the records of each emancipated slave and provided new identities to help them. Then there is Janelle Monae, as Mary Buchanon, born a free woman. She was among the group that helped Harriet make a new life in Philadelphia.
The film tells a brave tale, but it glosses over the dark history of slavery. Yes, it is one of the dark chapters in humanity. The atrocities committed in the name of self-preservation are despicable. The creators of the movie could have provided a more realistic representation of a picture of slavery.
This film is very good. Ms. Erivo performs effortlessly as Harriet. The supporting cast are very good. Harriet Tubman was a hell of a woman back in the day. I liked the movie. I also would have liked to have slavery shown in stark reality, not coated in idealism.
The story begins after church services where Minty’s husband John Tubman who was a free slave asks the plantation owner to allow Minty to be freed so their children would be born free instead of slaves. The slave owner, Henry Broadess (Mike Marunde played with a gleeful abundance of entitlement) denies the request. This is the spark where Araminta decides to run away to live as a free person.
Minty was known for her “spells” since the accident, where she was hit in the forehead by a thrown weight. The film interprets seizures as her conversation with God. The film uses these spells as her talks with and messages received from God. That is how Harriett’s visions are explained. That she has an ability to know where to go and what to from what she sees when she has an episode.
Harriet had saved herself from slavery. She made it to the State of Pennsylvania where she would be free. After a year or so, Harriet decided that she would not be able to rest comfortably as a “free slave” without her husband and her family. That is when she decided that she would go get her loved ones.
As we know from history, she saved her family and many others through the Underground Railroad. All her rescues were successful, totaling 70 that she brought to freedom. The Civil War began a few years later. We are shown Harriet, working with the Union Army to save the lives of about 700 slaves.
The film celebrates Harriet Tubman and provides a beautiful biographical film of this amazing woman. Cynthia Erivo should get a nomination or two come award season. Pssst, she already has a Tony from her performance of The Color Purple on Broadway and a Grammy. She is already halfway to an EGOT. The cast of the film is fantastic. Leslie Odom Jr. as William Still, the man who kept the records of each emancipated slave and provided new identities to help them. Then there is Janelle Monae, as Mary Buchanon, born a free woman. She was among the group that helped Harriet make a new life in Philadelphia.
The film tells a brave tale, but it glosses over the dark history of slavery. Yes, it is one of the dark chapters in humanity. The atrocities committed in the name of self-preservation are despicable. The creators of the movie could have provided a more realistic representation of a picture of slavery.
This film is very good. Ms. Erivo performs effortlessly as Harriet. The supporting cast are very good. Harriet Tubman was a hell of a woman back in the day. I liked the movie. I also would have liked to have slavery shown in stark reality, not coated in idealism.
Ultimate General™: Gettysburg
Games
App
A Tactical Wargame that allows you to command thousands of soldiers as a Union or Confederate...
Ghost Capture
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
Ghosts Don't Exist Presents "Ghost Capture" ***NOW WITH 40 TOTAL GHOSTS!! DON'T FORGET TO SUBMIT...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Marvel touch
The first thing I’m going to tell you about Spider-Man: Homecoming is that it has been gloriously undersold in its uninspiring trailers and promotional posters. In fact, most of the marketing materials shown made it look like this would be Iron Man 4 ft. Peter Parker. Thankfully that’s not the case.
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Witchfinder's Sister in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<i><b>I think now that to be close to someone can be to underestimate them. Grow too close, and you do not see what they are capable of; or you do not see it in time.</b></i>
<i>The Witchfinder’s Sister</i> is based on true life witch hunter Matthew Hopkins that grew to fame during the English Civil War around East Anglia, hunting and killing “witches”. This book isn’t non-fiction, it’s fiction based around non-fiction! I love these sorts of books that create their own stories from something that was very much real. Not only does it make for good reading, they also bring in some true history facts, so you’re being educated on the subject as you read.
High praise goes to Underdown for this novel. I feel like historical fiction can be hard genre to get right, and considering this is a <i>debut</i> novel, I’m amazed at how well put together and beautiful this has turned out to be! I love reading historical fiction, every once in awhile, and this is the sort of book that keeps my love for the genre burning.
The writing in this novel was haunting and beautiful. Nine times out of ten, it was exactly as you would have imagined the 17th Century to be, but I felt there were a few slips that made the book feel modern. For example, would a lady in 1645 say the phrase <i><b>“shitting herself”</b></i>? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that feels like a reasonably modern phrase to me.
I loved our main character, Alice. Me and my mum were talking about historical fiction novels and how we find it hard to understand why women make the decisions they make in these books, because we’re so used to having some equality and independence. But I noted that in this book, even though Alice is inferior to her brother and his counterparts, she is still a risk taker; going against her brother's wishes & sneaking around. I liked that she was strong and a little rebellious, it was so much easier to connect with her because of this.
On the other hand. I <i>hated</i> Matthew. He was a despicable character. I can rarely hate a character in a book, even if I’m supposed to. I tend to find the good in them at some point, or have some sort of sympathy for them, but I absolutely despised Matthew. Well done to Underdown for creating such a hate-inducing character. It’s quite a hard feat, but she managed it perfectly. The same goes for Mary Phillips.
The tension was built so well in this novel, you could feel the mystery growing and growing with every page and I loved it! Though the story moved reasonably slowly, the book was still absolutely riveting and I found it extremely hard to put down when I knew it was time to get some rest.
I am so, so excited to read more from Underdown. This was an amazingly well put together and researched.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Books UK for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
<i>The Witchfinder’s Sister</i> is based on true life witch hunter Matthew Hopkins that grew to fame during the English Civil War around East Anglia, hunting and killing “witches”. This book isn’t non-fiction, it’s fiction based around non-fiction! I love these sorts of books that create their own stories from something that was very much real. Not only does it make for good reading, they also bring in some true history facts, so you’re being educated on the subject as you read.
High praise goes to Underdown for this novel. I feel like historical fiction can be hard genre to get right, and considering this is a <i>debut</i> novel, I’m amazed at how well put together and beautiful this has turned out to be! I love reading historical fiction, every once in awhile, and this is the sort of book that keeps my love for the genre burning.
The writing in this novel was haunting and beautiful. Nine times out of ten, it was exactly as you would have imagined the 17th Century to be, but I felt there were a few slips that made the book feel modern. For example, would a lady in 1645 say the phrase <i><b>“shitting herself”</b></i>? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that feels like a reasonably modern phrase to me.
I loved our main character, Alice. Me and my mum were talking about historical fiction novels and how we find it hard to understand why women make the decisions they make in these books, because we’re so used to having some equality and independence. But I noted that in this book, even though Alice is inferior to her brother and his counterparts, she is still a risk taker; going against her brother's wishes & sneaking around. I liked that she was strong and a little rebellious, it was so much easier to connect with her because of this.
On the other hand. I <i>hated</i> Matthew. He was a despicable character. I can rarely hate a character in a book, even if I’m supposed to. I tend to find the good in them at some point, or have some sort of sympathy for them, but I absolutely despised Matthew. Well done to Underdown for creating such a hate-inducing character. It’s quite a hard feat, but she managed it perfectly. The same goes for Mary Phillips.
The tension was built so well in this novel, you could feel the mystery growing and growing with every page and I loved it! Though the story moved reasonably slowly, the book was still absolutely riveting and I found it extremely hard to put down when I knew it was time to get some rest.
I am so, so excited to read more from Underdown. This was an amazingly well put together and researched.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Books UK for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated X-Men Origins - Wolverine (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The 2009 summer movie season has arrived with the releases of “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”, which once again stars Hugh Jackman in the role of the razor clawed Wolverine.
The film follows the characters origins in the mid 1800’s and how circumstances forced a young Logan to leave his home and spend the years hiding who he was.
With the only link to his past, a fellow mutant named Victor (Liev Schrieber), Logan and Victor ride out the years side by side taking part in wars ranging from The Civil War to Vietnam all the while trying as best as they can to hide their true nature.
When Victor starts to enjoy killing too much, and Logan tries to intercede, the duo find themselves the subject of unwanted attention in the guise of an officer named William Styker (William Houston), who recruits the duo to be part of a special team.
Victor and Logan find themselves part of a team of special powered operatives which includes the marksman Agent Zero (Daniel Henney), the Blade twirling Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), The Blob (Kevin Durand), Bolt (Dominic Monaghan), and more. When an operation goes too far, Logan turns his back on the team for a peaceful life as a lumberjack and lives for years in peace with a woman named Kayla (Lynn Collins) very much in love.
Try as Logan may to escape his past, he is unable to when Stryker arrives and tells him that someone is hunting down the former team. Logan ignores the warning and is devastated when Victor is revealed to be behind the killings and strikes a devastating blow to Logan.
With nowhere to go, Logan agrees to Stryker’s plan and undergoes an experiment which infuses his body with the indestructible Adamantium but soon finds himself again on the run when he is betrayed and learns the true nature of Stryker’s plans.
In a race against time, Logan must find the mysterious Island where Stryker has captured several mutants for his experiments and exact his revenge.
The new film was plagued by rumors of issues, which were heightened by reported reshoots and script changes, but thankfully manages to pull together to be an enjoyable summer film. Some may say the film took a bit to get up to the action sequences, but thanks to the great play between Jackman and Schrieber, the film keeps your attention.
There are some solid action sequences in the film and Jackman does not disappoint as we gain insights into the mercurial nature of Wolverine, and how various aspects of his character such as his memory loss came to be.
I would have liked to have seen more action in the film as the main action scenes were a bit to restrained and infrequent for my liking. When I go to a summer movie, I expect to be blown away by the action, and with this one, I had a sense of being underwhelmed by the films action sequences, even the climactic battle.
This is not to say the film is bad, simply that it lacks the needed gear to shift the film into overdrive. I did enjoy Jackman’s performance and it was great seeing the new characters in the film especially Gambit. Fans with sharp eyes will note many characters pop up in cameos and there are some real surprise visits in the film. In the end, “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is better than the last X-Men film and should prove enough life in the series for future projects.
The film follows the characters origins in the mid 1800’s and how circumstances forced a young Logan to leave his home and spend the years hiding who he was.
With the only link to his past, a fellow mutant named Victor (Liev Schrieber), Logan and Victor ride out the years side by side taking part in wars ranging from The Civil War to Vietnam all the while trying as best as they can to hide their true nature.
When Victor starts to enjoy killing too much, and Logan tries to intercede, the duo find themselves the subject of unwanted attention in the guise of an officer named William Styker (William Houston), who recruits the duo to be part of a special team.
Victor and Logan find themselves part of a team of special powered operatives which includes the marksman Agent Zero (Daniel Henney), the Blade twirling Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), The Blob (Kevin Durand), Bolt (Dominic Monaghan), and more. When an operation goes too far, Logan turns his back on the team for a peaceful life as a lumberjack and lives for years in peace with a woman named Kayla (Lynn Collins) very much in love.
Try as Logan may to escape his past, he is unable to when Stryker arrives and tells him that someone is hunting down the former team. Logan ignores the warning and is devastated when Victor is revealed to be behind the killings and strikes a devastating blow to Logan.
With nowhere to go, Logan agrees to Stryker’s plan and undergoes an experiment which infuses his body with the indestructible Adamantium but soon finds himself again on the run when he is betrayed and learns the true nature of Stryker’s plans.
In a race against time, Logan must find the mysterious Island where Stryker has captured several mutants for his experiments and exact his revenge.
The new film was plagued by rumors of issues, which were heightened by reported reshoots and script changes, but thankfully manages to pull together to be an enjoyable summer film. Some may say the film took a bit to get up to the action sequences, but thanks to the great play between Jackman and Schrieber, the film keeps your attention.
There are some solid action sequences in the film and Jackman does not disappoint as we gain insights into the mercurial nature of Wolverine, and how various aspects of his character such as his memory loss came to be.
I would have liked to have seen more action in the film as the main action scenes were a bit to restrained and infrequent for my liking. When I go to a summer movie, I expect to be blown away by the action, and with this one, I had a sense of being underwhelmed by the films action sequences, even the climactic battle.
This is not to say the film is bad, simply that it lacks the needed gear to shift the film into overdrive. I did enjoy Jackman’s performance and it was great seeing the new characters in the film especially Gambit. Fans with sharp eyes will note many characters pop up in cameos and there are some real surprise visits in the film. In the end, “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is better than the last X-Men film and should prove enough life in the series for future projects.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated MARY: The Summoning (Bloody Mary, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I don't know the precise reason why I actually requested The Summoning in the first place. I do know that I must have been really intrigued by the idea of a retelling of Bloody Mary and maybe just wanted a break from the influx of YA books that have some type of romance running about. Or, I just wanted to measure Hillary Monahan's debut novel with a scare-a-meter.
The first in the Bloody Mary series follows Shauna O'Brien, who decides to join with her 3 friends, Jess, Anna and Kitty to summon Bloody Mary, a legend that has been around since the 1960s with rumors that the person is someone who died near the end of the Civil War by the name of Mary Worth. As a result of summoning Bloody Mary, the spirit manages to go free from its rightful place within the boundaries of a mirror and begins to haunt the 4 girls, Shauna being her main victim.
Possibly what Mary so scary is the very fact she pops out everywhere almost and locks doors/windows. As the author so puts it in a sentence...
<blockquote>Mary was appearing without a summoning, manipulating objects, haunting glass, and skipping from surface to surface.</blockquote>
I did have a problem with Mary's abilities though. While it certainly puts a wow to the scare factor, Mary seems a little... too powerful. Reflective object manipulation? That's almost everything if you ask me. Computer/Tablet screens, washers/dryers, refrigerators, windows, doorknobs, lambs, flash drives, scissors, transportation, sinks, etc. So not only does the haunted have to live in isolation to protect everyone they love, but s/he have to live smelling like poo and crap for the rest of their lives because they can't take a decent shower?
<img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nfP1y5PZpOs/U49rNV8em4I/AAAAAAAADZo/XHTD2iwNTxs/s1600/giphy.gif"; border="0">
Somehow, I don't think Mary qualifies as a ghost now. More like a demon in my humble opinion. While that may scare readers at first, eventually some will catch on and Mary won't be as scary.
The Summoning is basically the ultimate friendship test for the main characters – Jess, Anna, Kitty and Shauna have been best friends for quite awhile, so when Shauna begins to see Mary everywhere, they have to try to work together to get rid of the ghost. <spoiler>Apparently this test failed, because Anna gets taken. Once you're gone, you're technically gone. It's not like doing anything would have brought Anna back. Although I did like her, so it was actually sad to see her get taken through the mirror by a ghost.</spoiler>
So the ultimate question from the beginning: how well can Hillary Monahan scare me? Quite well, but I managed to sleep very well. While I'll certainly applaud on what a chilling twist on an urban legend The Summoning was, Mary needs to be toned down a bit to make her more believable.
----------------
Advanced Review copy provided by Disney Hyperion for review
Original Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/arc-review-mary-the-summoning-by-hillary-monahan.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
The first in the Bloody Mary series follows Shauna O'Brien, who decides to join with her 3 friends, Jess, Anna and Kitty to summon Bloody Mary, a legend that has been around since the 1960s with rumors that the person is someone who died near the end of the Civil War by the name of Mary Worth. As a result of summoning Bloody Mary, the spirit manages to go free from its rightful place within the boundaries of a mirror and begins to haunt the 4 girls, Shauna being her main victim.
Possibly what Mary so scary is the very fact she pops out everywhere almost and locks doors/windows. As the author so puts it in a sentence...
<blockquote>Mary was appearing without a summoning, manipulating objects, haunting glass, and skipping from surface to surface.</blockquote>
I did have a problem with Mary's abilities though. While it certainly puts a wow to the scare factor, Mary seems a little... too powerful. Reflective object manipulation? That's almost everything if you ask me. Computer/Tablet screens, washers/dryers, refrigerators, windows, doorknobs, lambs, flash drives, scissors, transportation, sinks, etc. So not only does the haunted have to live in isolation to protect everyone they love, but s/he have to live smelling like poo and crap for the rest of their lives because they can't take a decent shower?
<img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nfP1y5PZpOs/U49rNV8em4I/AAAAAAAADZo/XHTD2iwNTxs/s1600/giphy.gif"; border="0">
Somehow, I don't think Mary qualifies as a ghost now. More like a demon in my humble opinion. While that may scare readers at first, eventually some will catch on and Mary won't be as scary.
The Summoning is basically the ultimate friendship test for the main characters – Jess, Anna, Kitty and Shauna have been best friends for quite awhile, so when Shauna begins to see Mary everywhere, they have to try to work together to get rid of the ghost. <spoiler>Apparently this test failed, because Anna gets taken. Once you're gone, you're technically gone. It's not like doing anything would have brought Anna back. Although I did like her, so it was actually sad to see her get taken through the mirror by a ghost.</spoiler>
So the ultimate question from the beginning: how well can Hillary Monahan scare me? Quite well, but I managed to sleep very well. While I'll certainly applaud on what a chilling twist on an urban legend The Summoning was, Mary needs to be toned down a bit to make her more believable.
----------------
Advanced Review copy provided by Disney Hyperion for review
Original Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/arc-review-mary-the-summoning-by-hillary-monahan.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>