Search
Search results
Fred (860 KP) rated Star Wars: Resistance in TV
Oct 31, 2018
Animation is terrible (2 more)
Characters are not memorable
Tries too much to be funny
The force is not with this one
I love Star Wars. I love the original movies, the prequels & the Disney era films as well. I loved the Clone Wars cartoon as well as Rebels. So, along comes Resistance. A show I had not even heard of until the day it was going to air. I was excited for a new show. That was, until I saw the trailer.
See, this show is done in CGI drawn animation. Usually this kind of animation is limited to maybe vehicles or robots & the rest is done with traditional hand-drawn animation. This can be jarring to view as the CGI animation usually moves choppy & slow. I could see where this kind of animation seems like it should work. A "3-D" object can be moved & turned easily, the animation should be smooth. but it's not. Can't stand this animation. I find I can't watch more than a few minutes before it gets too annoying. Anyway, I was gong to go on about other shows that use this animation, but this is about Resistance. So, this entire show uses this kind of animation. Fortunately, the animation is at least smooth moving, but the characters all suffer from an unnatural movement. Character design is also horrible & that doesn't help.
That's problem one. So, now to the next. The show is not memorable in the least. The characters, stories, situations, nothing. After 4 episodes, there is nothing that stuck out to me, where as I can still pick out dozens of scenes from both Clone Wars & Rebels. Star Wars memorable scenes. maybe that's it. Resistance doesn't feel like Star Wars. Even with the cameos by Poe Dameron, Leia, Captain Phasma & C-3PO were so brief & completely forgettable. In fact, I forgot C-3PO even appeared until I looked up the cast on IMDB.
Next problem. A lot of people thought The Last Jedi had too much humor in it. They thought that this was fine for a Disney film, but not a Star Wars film. I could see that, however, I didn't think it was too much & enjoyed the film very much. There are times when I do think it's too much, like in the horrendous new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon. Every 2 seconds, a joke bombarding us. It's just too much. There's a guy who does the voice of Donatello on that show that also does a voice on Resistance. I bring that up because his character on Resistance may be the worst character in the Star Wars universe. His name is Neeku. He's a Rodian character who is so dumb, he makes Jar Jar Binks look like Steven Hawking. Yes, he's worse than Binks. He's annoying & supposedly the comic relief. Which brings me to my next point. Every character is comic relief in this show. Yes, just like the new TMNT, the show is joke after joke. As bad as that is thought, Neeku takes the cake as the "please, kill him" character.
So, you ask me why am I watching this show if it's so bad? Well, because it's canon & I'm a Star Wars fanatic. However, it doesn't seem to have any consequence on the Star Wars universe at all. There's no weaving of the stories in the greater, larger world at all. I watch in hope that it does. I do re-watch Clone Wars & Rebels, but this show will probably be the first in my Star Wars filled life, that I just watch once & forget it ever happened.
See, this show is done in CGI drawn animation. Usually this kind of animation is limited to maybe vehicles or robots & the rest is done with traditional hand-drawn animation. This can be jarring to view as the CGI animation usually moves choppy & slow. I could see where this kind of animation seems like it should work. A "3-D" object can be moved & turned easily, the animation should be smooth. but it's not. Can't stand this animation. I find I can't watch more than a few minutes before it gets too annoying. Anyway, I was gong to go on about other shows that use this animation, but this is about Resistance. So, this entire show uses this kind of animation. Fortunately, the animation is at least smooth moving, but the characters all suffer from an unnatural movement. Character design is also horrible & that doesn't help.
That's problem one. So, now to the next. The show is not memorable in the least. The characters, stories, situations, nothing. After 4 episodes, there is nothing that stuck out to me, where as I can still pick out dozens of scenes from both Clone Wars & Rebels. Star Wars memorable scenes. maybe that's it. Resistance doesn't feel like Star Wars. Even with the cameos by Poe Dameron, Leia, Captain Phasma & C-3PO were so brief & completely forgettable. In fact, I forgot C-3PO even appeared until I looked up the cast on IMDB.
Next problem. A lot of people thought The Last Jedi had too much humor in it. They thought that this was fine for a Disney film, but not a Star Wars film. I could see that, however, I didn't think it was too much & enjoyed the film very much. There are times when I do think it's too much, like in the horrendous new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon. Every 2 seconds, a joke bombarding us. It's just too much. There's a guy who does the voice of Donatello on that show that also does a voice on Resistance. I bring that up because his character on Resistance may be the worst character in the Star Wars universe. His name is Neeku. He's a Rodian character who is so dumb, he makes Jar Jar Binks look like Steven Hawking. Yes, he's worse than Binks. He's annoying & supposedly the comic relief. Which brings me to my next point. Every character is comic relief in this show. Yes, just like the new TMNT, the show is joke after joke. As bad as that is thought, Neeku takes the cake as the "please, kill him" character.
So, you ask me why am I watching this show if it's so bad? Well, because it's canon & I'm a Star Wars fanatic. However, it doesn't seem to have any consequence on the Star Wars universe at all. There's no weaving of the stories in the greater, larger world at all. I watch in hope that it does. I do re-watch Clone Wars & Rebels, but this show will probably be the first in my Star Wars filled life, that I just watch once & forget it ever happened.
Carma (21 KP) rated How to Keep a Secret in Books
Jun 17, 2019
How to Keep a Secret is written in a different style than we normally see from Sarah Morgan. As with all her other novels, this one flows story to story without hesitation blending all 4 womens stories into one overall story. Not leaving you feel like you are reading separate stories, another 5 star, well done for Ms. Morgan.
How to Keep a Secret follows the stories of Mom Nancy, a painter who barely had time for her daughters while they grew up. Sisters Jenna, who longs for a baby with her husband (maybe too much), Lauren, whos husband unexpectedly dies leaving her in chaos with her teenage daughter Mack, who isnt much into supporting her mother right now. They each are well versed in secret keeping, will they come together as one to tackle them head on.
Each woman has her own story to tell and each is told with passion, compassion, dignity and grace from both their own perspectives and as seen from those around them. Once again Ms. Morgan uses her pen and paper to draw us into this world, surrounding us with new friends who we fight for, care about and are sad when they leave us.
Nancys story could be a mothers story from any age or perspective. She is the breadwinner and leaves the care of the girls up to their dad, the fun one. She feels like she has neglected them their whole lives and has no clue how to be there for them now. Having lost her husband 5 years ago she has become a shell of her former self. She has to do some major life adjustments and clean outs to get back to being herself again. Maybe even find love again.
Lauren is dealing with the loss of her husband as well, though in the present not the past as her mother is. She has lost the close connection with her teenage daughter Mack, and has absolutely no idea what happened to cause the rift. At her husbands funeral she finally finds out the reason behind Macks sudden departure. As she packs and moves back home to Marthas Vineyard, can she find peace with her daughter once again?
Jenna has suffered her own personal losses as of late she cant get pregnant. She has no idea why or how come, she just knows she wants a baby more than anything isnt being afforded the opportunity. If one more well-meaning person tells her how great a mom shed be when she finally decided to have a baby, she would spit nails. Shes decided the universe has not. Can her marriage to Greg withstand the constant pressure that comes from trying to make a baby and failing?
Mack is a confused, upset, lonely and borderline angry teenage girl. She just lost her dad Ed and is now having to move across the pond with her mother into her grandmothers house on Marthas Vineyard. Nothing about life is fair at this moment. Can she start over in a new place, with new friends and new family?
Ms. Morgan once again tells a beautiful story that has you so wrapped up in the lives of the characters you are quite upset that it has ended. I received a copy of the novel in advance without any expectations for review. Any and all opinions expressed are solely my own. I would advise you to run, not walk, to the nearest place that sells Ms. Morgans books and pick up a copy today.
How to Keep a Secret follows the stories of Mom Nancy, a painter who barely had time for her daughters while they grew up. Sisters Jenna, who longs for a baby with her husband (maybe too much), Lauren, whos husband unexpectedly dies leaving her in chaos with her teenage daughter Mack, who isnt much into supporting her mother right now. They each are well versed in secret keeping, will they come together as one to tackle them head on.
Each woman has her own story to tell and each is told with passion, compassion, dignity and grace from both their own perspectives and as seen from those around them. Once again Ms. Morgan uses her pen and paper to draw us into this world, surrounding us with new friends who we fight for, care about and are sad when they leave us.
Nancys story could be a mothers story from any age or perspective. She is the breadwinner and leaves the care of the girls up to their dad, the fun one. She feels like she has neglected them their whole lives and has no clue how to be there for them now. Having lost her husband 5 years ago she has become a shell of her former self. She has to do some major life adjustments and clean outs to get back to being herself again. Maybe even find love again.
Lauren is dealing with the loss of her husband as well, though in the present not the past as her mother is. She has lost the close connection with her teenage daughter Mack, and has absolutely no idea what happened to cause the rift. At her husbands funeral she finally finds out the reason behind Macks sudden departure. As she packs and moves back home to Marthas Vineyard, can she find peace with her daughter once again?
Jenna has suffered her own personal losses as of late she cant get pregnant. She has no idea why or how come, she just knows she wants a baby more than anything isnt being afforded the opportunity. If one more well-meaning person tells her how great a mom shed be when she finally decided to have a baby, she would spit nails. Shes decided the universe has not. Can her marriage to Greg withstand the constant pressure that comes from trying to make a baby and failing?
Mack is a confused, upset, lonely and borderline angry teenage girl. She just lost her dad Ed and is now having to move across the pond with her mother into her grandmothers house on Marthas Vineyard. Nothing about life is fair at this moment. Can she start over in a new place, with new friends and new family?
Ms. Morgan once again tells a beautiful story that has you so wrapped up in the lives of the characters you are quite upset that it has ended. I received a copy of the novel in advance without any expectations for review. Any and all opinions expressed are solely my own. I would advise you to run, not walk, to the nearest place that sells Ms. Morgans books and pick up a copy today.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Fred Flarksy is a controversial journalist who likes to uncover the evil and corrupt in the world, when his paper is brought by a company that they themselves have uncovered as the "bad guy" he quits on the spot. Lance, his best friend, knows exactly what he needs to feel better, drink, steak, and a fundraiser with Boyz II Men.
It's fair to say that Fred didn't expect leaving his job to lead him to a chance reunion and such a wild ride.
It's fair to say that I wasn't too sure what this one was going to be like. I've never been a massive fan of Seth Rogen, a lot of his roles seem pointlessly crude. I don't mind that particularly, but too much of it just isn't my cup of tea. The line-up of him and Theron seemed a little mad, and a bit off balance, but the trailers looked like they had something to them so I was willing to have my mind changed... and oh boy did I change my mind.
At this point I've seen the movie twice and it really is great fun, and surprisingly heartwarming.
The odd headlining duo actually work wonderfully together, they bounce off each other so well throughout and that chemistry has shot this up into my favourite rom-coms.
Seth Rogen seems to have a knack for the outraged outbursts in films and we get a few of those at the beginning of the film. We quickly see Fred become a loveable character when he first sees Charlotte across the room at the fundraiser. He's sweet, he's vulnerable and he's funny. That's when you really start rooting for him.
Had you asked me to sum up Charlize Theron's previous acting roles I'd have said they were all of the dramatic and action persuasion, and mostly they are, I'd completely forgotten things like Gringo and A Million Ways To Die In The West. I hope we'll see more of her doing this sort of comedy, she's obviously well suited for it.
It's not just the lead roles though, the support cast are brilliant. June Diane Raphael as Charlotte's right-hand woman was so snippy with Fred to great effect, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Lance was the sort of supportive friend we all need. The highlight though was Tristan D. Lalla as secret service Agent M, he takes adorable to a whole new level.
My only negative on the casting was Alexander Skarsgård, but that's not because of his acting, it's because of what they did to him... that slurping, that laugh... why would you do that?! Why!!? After the wonder of him in The Aftermath this has ruined the image of him for me.
Long Shot's plot is entirely predictable. Two people are reunited after years, they catch feelings, something gets in the way, they split up, then they get back together. The fact you know where it's leading just means that you can sit back and enjoy it more. I was expecting the funny, but I really wasn't expecting to cry... yes, I know I'm a wreck. There are some surprisingly touching moments involved and the way they brought the film together at the end was perfect.
This probably deserves 5 stars, and I would give it that extra half star in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the Skarsgård thing and the fact that there's no way I could watch this with my parents even though I know dad would find it hilarious.
What you should do
It's definitely one to see, it doesn't need the big screen but you certainly won't be wasting your money if you went and saw it at the cinema.
It's fair to say that Fred didn't expect leaving his job to lead him to a chance reunion and such a wild ride.
It's fair to say that I wasn't too sure what this one was going to be like. I've never been a massive fan of Seth Rogen, a lot of his roles seem pointlessly crude. I don't mind that particularly, but too much of it just isn't my cup of tea. The line-up of him and Theron seemed a little mad, and a bit off balance, but the trailers looked like they had something to them so I was willing to have my mind changed... and oh boy did I change my mind.
At this point I've seen the movie twice and it really is great fun, and surprisingly heartwarming.
The odd headlining duo actually work wonderfully together, they bounce off each other so well throughout and that chemistry has shot this up into my favourite rom-coms.
Seth Rogen seems to have a knack for the outraged outbursts in films and we get a few of those at the beginning of the film. We quickly see Fred become a loveable character when he first sees Charlotte across the room at the fundraiser. He's sweet, he's vulnerable and he's funny. That's when you really start rooting for him.
Had you asked me to sum up Charlize Theron's previous acting roles I'd have said they were all of the dramatic and action persuasion, and mostly they are, I'd completely forgotten things like Gringo and A Million Ways To Die In The West. I hope we'll see more of her doing this sort of comedy, she's obviously well suited for it.
It's not just the lead roles though, the support cast are brilliant. June Diane Raphael as Charlotte's right-hand woman was so snippy with Fred to great effect, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Lance was the sort of supportive friend we all need. The highlight though was Tristan D. Lalla as secret service Agent M, he takes adorable to a whole new level.
My only negative on the casting was Alexander Skarsgård, but that's not because of his acting, it's because of what they did to him... that slurping, that laugh... why would you do that?! Why!!? After the wonder of him in The Aftermath this has ruined the image of him for me.
Long Shot's plot is entirely predictable. Two people are reunited after years, they catch feelings, something gets in the way, they split up, then they get back together. The fact you know where it's leading just means that you can sit back and enjoy it more. I was expecting the funny, but I really wasn't expecting to cry... yes, I know I'm a wreck. There are some surprisingly touching moments involved and the way they brought the film together at the end was perfect.
This probably deserves 5 stars, and I would give it that extra half star in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the Skarsgård thing and the fact that there's no way I could watch this with my parents even though I know dad would find it hilarious.
What you should do
It's definitely one to see, it doesn't need the big screen but you certainly won't be wasting your money if you went and saw it at the cinema.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
When I first heard about this movie, I was expecting the worst. I’ve been exposed to my fair share of B-type horror movies (I was raised on “Critters,” “Ghoulies,” “Killer Clowns from Outerspace,” and everything else one can imagine as a kid). I laughed at the SyFy channel’s monster movie line-up and was sick unto death of zombie movies. That said, I wasn’t entirely excited for this movie’s premier. My boyfriend, however, was chomping at the bit. He adores B-type
movies and this was no exception. And, to my honest surprise, it wasn’t as awful as I had wholly envisioned in my head.
The movie starts with a young Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) defending his slave friend, Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie), from abuse at the hands of a slave trader. A scuffle ensues and Abraham’s father is ultimately met face-to-face with “Adam” (Rufus Sewell), a well-known and well-feared trader in the lands. The two exchange heated words with Adam threatening to extract his revenge by some unknown means. What seems later that evening, Abraham’s mother is attacked by Adam as young Abraham watches from the shadows. Adam, as one can guess, is a vampire and leaves Abraham’s mother in such a state she cannot recover. Upon her death, Abraham vows revenge, devoting the next ten years of his life to killing Adam.
As the reader can surmise, Abraham is ill-equipped to face Adam and when the day finally arrives, he finds himself wholly unprepared for the task. Cue the entrance of Henry Sturgess, Vampire Hunter. Saving Abraham from an early demise, Henry (Dominic Cooper) takes the young man under his wing and teaches him the way of vampire hunting. He teaches young Abe that the vampires control the whole of the south, using the slave trade as their means for fresh and easily accessible blood. Having never tolerated slavery of any kind, Abraham is infuriated by this and his desire to eradicate the vampire colony grows.
From there he is bequeathed his infamous axe, its edge lined in silver, and we watch as young Abe grows and matures as a skilled warrior before our eyes. When the time comes, Abraham is sent away on a mission to kill select vampires in a quiet town, vampires who pose as noted professionals and townspersons during the day. As a rule, Henry cautions Abraham not to make any friends or form any kind of attachments. Of course, it’s at this point he meets Mary Todd and that whole theory goes out the window. In addition to his vampire hunting, he also begins his career in politics and as a renowned orator. Given one’s knowledge of history, we can see where this all leads.
I won’t divulge the whole of the story here – I’m sure you can imagine where it goes and what comes of it. That said, aside from the over-the-top fighting scenes and certain drawn out moments (the horse stampede and train fight immediately come to mind), it wasn’t as awful as I had originally envisioned. The movie is entertaining and still
retains a fair amount of the B-movie cheesiness one hopes for in watching it. Obviously, the storyline is wracked with historical inaccuracies and unlikely moments (really, Abe Lincoln survives a horse being thrown at him?), but it’s a B-movie and I wasn’t expecting perfection.
If you’re looking for something that offers sheer entertainment and nothing further, this is a movie for you then. You won’t be blown away by the acting skills, the special effects are decent enough (don’t pay extra for 3-D though – it was awful), and while the movie feels slow and drags at parts, over-all it’s rather entertaining for what it is.
movies and this was no exception. And, to my honest surprise, it wasn’t as awful as I had wholly envisioned in my head.
The movie starts with a young Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) defending his slave friend, Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie), from abuse at the hands of a slave trader. A scuffle ensues and Abraham’s father is ultimately met face-to-face with “Adam” (Rufus Sewell), a well-known and well-feared trader in the lands. The two exchange heated words with Adam threatening to extract his revenge by some unknown means. What seems later that evening, Abraham’s mother is attacked by Adam as young Abraham watches from the shadows. Adam, as one can guess, is a vampire and leaves Abraham’s mother in such a state she cannot recover. Upon her death, Abraham vows revenge, devoting the next ten years of his life to killing Adam.
As the reader can surmise, Abraham is ill-equipped to face Adam and when the day finally arrives, he finds himself wholly unprepared for the task. Cue the entrance of Henry Sturgess, Vampire Hunter. Saving Abraham from an early demise, Henry (Dominic Cooper) takes the young man under his wing and teaches him the way of vampire hunting. He teaches young Abe that the vampires control the whole of the south, using the slave trade as their means for fresh and easily accessible blood. Having never tolerated slavery of any kind, Abraham is infuriated by this and his desire to eradicate the vampire colony grows.
From there he is bequeathed his infamous axe, its edge lined in silver, and we watch as young Abe grows and matures as a skilled warrior before our eyes. When the time comes, Abraham is sent away on a mission to kill select vampires in a quiet town, vampires who pose as noted professionals and townspersons during the day. As a rule, Henry cautions Abraham not to make any friends or form any kind of attachments. Of course, it’s at this point he meets Mary Todd and that whole theory goes out the window. In addition to his vampire hunting, he also begins his career in politics and as a renowned orator. Given one’s knowledge of history, we can see where this all leads.
I won’t divulge the whole of the story here – I’m sure you can imagine where it goes and what comes of it. That said, aside from the over-the-top fighting scenes and certain drawn out moments (the horse stampede and train fight immediately come to mind), it wasn’t as awful as I had originally envisioned. The movie is entertaining and still
retains a fair amount of the B-movie cheesiness one hopes for in watching it. Obviously, the storyline is wracked with historical inaccuracies and unlikely moments (really, Abe Lincoln survives a horse being thrown at him?), but it’s a B-movie and I wasn’t expecting perfection.
If you’re looking for something that offers sheer entertainment and nothing further, this is a movie for you then. You won’t be blown away by the acting skills, the special effects are decent enough (don’t pay extra for 3-D though – it was awful), and while the movie feels slow and drags at parts, over-all it’s rather entertaining for what it is.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 9, 2021
A classic
Film #14 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Saving Private Ryan
When I think of war films, I immediately think of Saving Private Ryan. This is partly because I shamefully haven’t seen the majority of the older classic war films (but I may have done by the time I reach the end of this list), and also because this is the first war film I ever saw. I have my dad to thank for introducing me to this, he was obsessed with anything war related, and while I would never admit this to him as a teenager, even back then I could appreciate how brilliant this film was.
Saving Private Ryan is a 1998 World War II epic from Steven Spielberg that follows a group of soldiers as they embark on a mission across France to rescue a man who’s 3 brothers have been killed in action. It stars Tom Hanks as Captain Miller as he leads a host of recognisable faces including Vin Diesel (Caparzo), Barry Pepper (Jackson), Tom Sizemore (Horvath), Giovanni Ribisi (Wade), Edward Burns (Reiben) and Jeremy Davies as Upham as they trek across country to find Matt Damon’s Private Ryan.
The main plot is definitely very Hollywood, but the film itself looks and feels like anything but a glamorous Hollywood blockbuster. This is by far the grittiest, darkest and most horrific war film I’ve seen to date. Spielberg does not shy away from displaying the true horror of war, from the blood and gore of the fighting to the physical and psychological effects it had on the soldiers , it’s all here in all of its horrifying glory. One of the most memorable scenes of any war film is the opening sequence of the D-Day landings, that shows a haunting and frightfully bloody side of the war that no other films have managed to capture in such a dark and emotionally draining manner. Even the opening scene in Arlington Cemetery, especially when paired with a moving score from John Williams, is a tearjerker only a few minutes into the 2.5 hour runtime. I don’t know how factually realistic this whole film is, but it’s definitely one of the most compellingly believable films I’ve ever seen, especially the death scenes.
Visually the cinematography helps with the dark and gritty feeling. Everything looks grey and drab, even hazy at times, and this only helps to promote the overall tone of the film. Admittedly there are parts of this now that do look a little dated and there are a few early scenes with a strange out of place camera flare, but considering it was released 23 years ago, it’s aged pretty well and still looks quite good. It’s helped by a truly stellar cast lead by the ever brilliant Tom Hanks, who’s turn as Captain Miller is hauntingly good. The fact that he didn’t win the Oscar for his performance is criminal. Him alongside the rest of the cast, including memorably brash Brooklynite Reiben (Burns) and God-fearing elite sniper Jackson (Pepper), completely embody the camaraderie, friendship and sometimes hostility shown by the group of men perfectly. My only slight criticism of this film is that after growing to know and like these men over the course of the film, there is a question mark over some of their fates at the end which is a tiny bit disappointing.
Saving Private Ryan won 5 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Cinematography, but was nominated for many others including Best Picture, which in my opinion it deserved far more than the film that won in 1999 (Shakespeare in Love), as this is undoubtedly an all time classic war film.
When I think of war films, I immediately think of Saving Private Ryan. This is partly because I shamefully haven’t seen the majority of the older classic war films (but I may have done by the time I reach the end of this list), and also because this is the first war film I ever saw. I have my dad to thank for introducing me to this, he was obsessed with anything war related, and while I would never admit this to him as a teenager, even back then I could appreciate how brilliant this film was.
Saving Private Ryan is a 1998 World War II epic from Steven Spielberg that follows a group of soldiers as they embark on a mission across France to rescue a man who’s 3 brothers have been killed in action. It stars Tom Hanks as Captain Miller as he leads a host of recognisable faces including Vin Diesel (Caparzo), Barry Pepper (Jackson), Tom Sizemore (Horvath), Giovanni Ribisi (Wade), Edward Burns (Reiben) and Jeremy Davies as Upham as they trek across country to find Matt Damon’s Private Ryan.
The main plot is definitely very Hollywood, but the film itself looks and feels like anything but a glamorous Hollywood blockbuster. This is by far the grittiest, darkest and most horrific war film I’ve seen to date. Spielberg does not shy away from displaying the true horror of war, from the blood and gore of the fighting to the physical and psychological effects it had on the soldiers , it’s all here in all of its horrifying glory. One of the most memorable scenes of any war film is the opening sequence of the D-Day landings, that shows a haunting and frightfully bloody side of the war that no other films have managed to capture in such a dark and emotionally draining manner. Even the opening scene in Arlington Cemetery, especially when paired with a moving score from John Williams, is a tearjerker only a few minutes into the 2.5 hour runtime. I don’t know how factually realistic this whole film is, but it’s definitely one of the most compellingly believable films I’ve ever seen, especially the death scenes.
Visually the cinematography helps with the dark and gritty feeling. Everything looks grey and drab, even hazy at times, and this only helps to promote the overall tone of the film. Admittedly there are parts of this now that do look a little dated and there are a few early scenes with a strange out of place camera flare, but considering it was released 23 years ago, it’s aged pretty well and still looks quite good. It’s helped by a truly stellar cast lead by the ever brilliant Tom Hanks, who’s turn as Captain Miller is hauntingly good. The fact that he didn’t win the Oscar for his performance is criminal. Him alongside the rest of the cast, including memorably brash Brooklynite Reiben (Burns) and God-fearing elite sniper Jackson (Pepper), completely embody the camaraderie, friendship and sometimes hostility shown by the group of men perfectly. My only slight criticism of this film is that after growing to know and like these men over the course of the film, there is a question mark over some of their fates at the end which is a tiny bit disappointing.
Saving Private Ryan won 5 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Cinematography, but was nominated for many others including Best Picture, which in my opinion it deserved far more than the film that won in 1999 (Shakespeare in Love), as this is undoubtedly an all time classic war film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
In May 1940, as Germany advanced into France, Allied troops found themselves surrounded at the town of Dunkirk with little time to escape. In the distance, the Germans sought to capture or kill each of the nearly 400,000 men. French and British soldiers began the slow process to evacuate using every naval or civilian ship available. Dunkirk examines the heroism involved by everyone on the land, sea, and air in their attempt to get their countrymen home.
When we discuss, reflect, or are taught about World War II, we often think the turning points of the war as the Battle of the Bulge, Leningrad, Midway, or D-Day. In doing this, we overlook moments like Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan exposes how vital this moment was in determining the fate, not only of the war, but the world in Dunkirk.
It is hard to describe what the film is like just from the visuals. It captures you and surrounds you by making the audience feel as though they are witnessing these events from a third-person perspective, as well as, through the eyes of those involved. The film itself is not limited to just the war or a discussion of the circumstances that led up to the war itself. There are no major battles shown, however, the film demonstrates quite vividly the horrors of war, the confusion, the chaos, the brutality, and the fear that each moment might be your last.
Dunkirk, masterfully tells the story of those involved in the evacuation of those troops that found themselves being pursued by Nazi Germany. Each frame will have audiences fearing for the safety of the men on the screen and hoping that they will somehow make it home despite all indications that their fate is sealed. Nolan gives audiences the opportunity to see the events in a multilayered way so that we can understand all of the moving parts involved in this massive undertaking. It renews the appreciation that many of us have for those who fought in World War II and offers a new sense of appreciation for younger generations who are far removed from those events. Most impressive about the film is its ability to be more historically accurate in displaying the different people who actually were fighting. It is not, like Saving Private Ryan, a film that exaggerates American participation in the war to make it look as though the only people fighting were Americans and Nazis. Dunkirk shows how the French, British, and Belgians, of various colors and backgrounds were fighting well before summer of 1944.
The film also pulls of quite an ambitious task by removing the Nazis from the film. This is not to say that there is no German presence in the film, rather, they minimize the focus on the Nazis in order to keep the focus on those evacuating and those involved in assisting with the efforts. In my viewing, I felt that this strengthened the film in adding to the fear by having a faceless enemy, one that could be lurking around the corner or coming around the corner at any moment. This added to the tension to make audiences feel the fear that so many of these young men must have had as they waited to board their ships to get home.
Dunkirk is impressive, emotional, and full of tension. It raises the bar with respect to how historically-based films should be in the representation of events. It does not rely on one linear story to capture the audience. It is an intelligent and overdue homage to the men and women who did all they could to ensure that these men made it home.
When we discuss, reflect, or are taught about World War II, we often think the turning points of the war as the Battle of the Bulge, Leningrad, Midway, or D-Day. In doing this, we overlook moments like Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan exposes how vital this moment was in determining the fate, not only of the war, but the world in Dunkirk.
It is hard to describe what the film is like just from the visuals. It captures you and surrounds you by making the audience feel as though they are witnessing these events from a third-person perspective, as well as, through the eyes of those involved. The film itself is not limited to just the war or a discussion of the circumstances that led up to the war itself. There are no major battles shown, however, the film demonstrates quite vividly the horrors of war, the confusion, the chaos, the brutality, and the fear that each moment might be your last.
Dunkirk, masterfully tells the story of those involved in the evacuation of those troops that found themselves being pursued by Nazi Germany. Each frame will have audiences fearing for the safety of the men on the screen and hoping that they will somehow make it home despite all indications that their fate is sealed. Nolan gives audiences the opportunity to see the events in a multilayered way so that we can understand all of the moving parts involved in this massive undertaking. It renews the appreciation that many of us have for those who fought in World War II and offers a new sense of appreciation for younger generations who are far removed from those events. Most impressive about the film is its ability to be more historically accurate in displaying the different people who actually were fighting. It is not, like Saving Private Ryan, a film that exaggerates American participation in the war to make it look as though the only people fighting were Americans and Nazis. Dunkirk shows how the French, British, and Belgians, of various colors and backgrounds were fighting well before summer of 1944.
The film also pulls of quite an ambitious task by removing the Nazis from the film. This is not to say that there is no German presence in the film, rather, they minimize the focus on the Nazis in order to keep the focus on those evacuating and those involved in assisting with the efforts. In my viewing, I felt that this strengthened the film in adding to the fear by having a faceless enemy, one that could be lurking around the corner or coming around the corner at any moment. This added to the tension to make audiences feel the fear that so many of these young men must have had as they waited to board their ships to get home.
Dunkirk is impressive, emotional, and full of tension. It raises the bar with respect to how historically-based films should be in the representation of events. It does not rely on one linear story to capture the audience. It is an intelligent and overdue homage to the men and women who did all they could to ensure that these men made it home.
Becs (244 KP) rated Siege and Storm in Books
Aug 25, 2019
Nikolai (2 more)
the Darkling
THAT ENDING
has major middle book syndrome (3 more)
main character is still annoying
mal is still a horrible character
there wasn't a lot of the Darkling when the books are supposed to be about him as a villain
Has middle book syndrome B A D but the last half of the book is great!
You can also find this review on my blog: bookingwayreads.wordpress.com
TRIGGER WARNINGS: torture, murder, war themes, hallucinations, death, blood, manipulation, violence
Review:
I originally rated this 4 out of 5 stars but I am dropping it down to 3.5 out of 5 stars as I’ve had a lot of time to think about my review and have realized that Siege and Storm has middle book syndrome.
My one problem with Siege and Storm, is that it needed more of the Darkling in it. The Shadow and Bone Trilogy is about the Darkling being the villain and Siege and Storm did not deliver. You’d think there would have been more of a prescense, but there was just not enough of him! Please take Mal away and replace him with the Darkling!! Also, what in the good lordy fucks was that ending Leigh?! ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL US!? I. AM. DEAD.
I still have an ever growing dislike for Mal. He doesn’t have one bit of empathy in his body and it’s so frustrating! Like he’s supposed to be that rock that Alina can fall back onto for support and he’s just being a douche about her having powers. Can we just replace all of Mal’s scenes with more of my BB’s Nikolai and the Darkling plz?! Nikolai had the best character development and was the most relatable in the entire series thus far.
I’ve not really grown to like Alina as much like others do, as she’s still the same annoying girl that I wish wasn’t as special as she is. One thing I do like about her though, is the whole anti hero darkness she has brewing along with the inner turmoil she’s dealing with. With her new found power enhancements, but I just wish her powers weren’t vaguely talked about.
Another thing I wasn’t entirely a fan of was the love triangle *cough cough* love SQUARE *cough cough* trope that took place throughout the novel. Don’t get me wrong, it was extremely well-written and really filled in some (read: a lot of the) boring parts. BUT, this trope is extremely overrated and can really ruin a novel. It was rather annoying that Alina had all of these men to choose from and she couldn’t make up her mind about any of them. Plus, I don’t think she deserves any of them. So… yea.
Okay, onto the story itself. The first half was… such… a… bore… It was so freaking slow and I wanted to give up on it so much. It also kind of put me into a slump on picking up Ruin and Rising. I just didn’t want to be disappointed like I was with Siege and Storm. The second half of the story on the other hand, was packed to the max with intense scenes and action. I honestly thought my wittle heart would crack into a million pieces.
Leigh’s writing style is extremely unique and well-done. She’s able to write scenes that not only grip your attention, but will also pluck each heart string until that breaking point. Then it will rip your heart out of your chest with one swift moment.
Other than a few bumps, Siege and Storm was captivating to a point, but not as much as Shadow and Bone. It’s a soul sucker of a book and I’m enamored with it. The world-building is some of the best I’ve ever seen, especially for a series. The tensions in scenes is extremely palpable – making this a great sequel to an amazing series.
“You know the problem with heroes and saints Nikolai? They always end up dead.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: torture, murder, war themes, hallucinations, death, blood, manipulation, violence
Review:
I originally rated this 4 out of 5 stars but I am dropping it down to 3.5 out of 5 stars as I’ve had a lot of time to think about my review and have realized that Siege and Storm has middle book syndrome.
My one problem with Siege and Storm, is that it needed more of the Darkling in it. The Shadow and Bone Trilogy is about the Darkling being the villain and Siege and Storm did not deliver. You’d think there would have been more of a prescense, but there was just not enough of him! Please take Mal away and replace him with the Darkling!! Also, what in the good lordy fucks was that ending Leigh?! ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL US!? I. AM. DEAD.
I still have an ever growing dislike for Mal. He doesn’t have one bit of empathy in his body and it’s so frustrating! Like he’s supposed to be that rock that Alina can fall back onto for support and he’s just being a douche about her having powers. Can we just replace all of Mal’s scenes with more of my BB’s Nikolai and the Darkling plz?! Nikolai had the best character development and was the most relatable in the entire series thus far.
I’ve not really grown to like Alina as much like others do, as she’s still the same annoying girl that I wish wasn’t as special as she is. One thing I do like about her though, is the whole anti hero darkness she has brewing along with the inner turmoil she’s dealing with. With her new found power enhancements, but I just wish her powers weren’t vaguely talked about.
Another thing I wasn’t entirely a fan of was the love triangle *cough cough* love SQUARE *cough cough* trope that took place throughout the novel. Don’t get me wrong, it was extremely well-written and really filled in some (read: a lot of the) boring parts. BUT, this trope is extremely overrated and can really ruin a novel. It was rather annoying that Alina had all of these men to choose from and she couldn’t make up her mind about any of them. Plus, I don’t think she deserves any of them. So… yea.
Okay, onto the story itself. The first half was… such… a… bore… It was so freaking slow and I wanted to give up on it so much. It also kind of put me into a slump on picking up Ruin and Rising. I just didn’t want to be disappointed like I was with Siege and Storm. The second half of the story on the other hand, was packed to the max with intense scenes and action. I honestly thought my wittle heart would crack into a million pieces.
Leigh’s writing style is extremely unique and well-done. She’s able to write scenes that not only grip your attention, but will also pluck each heart string until that breaking point. Then it will rip your heart out of your chest with one swift moment.
Other than a few bumps, Siege and Storm was captivating to a point, but not as much as Shadow and Bone. It’s a soul sucker of a book and I’m enamored with it. The world-building is some of the best I’ve ever seen, especially for a series. The tensions in scenes is extremely palpable – making this a great sequel to an amazing series.
“You know the problem with heroes and saints Nikolai? They always end up dead.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My One and Only in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I loved Kristin Higgins' last release, All I Ever Wanted. I loved that it was a good romance with good characters and no explicit sex scenes. I loved the dogs. I loved the quirks. I loved the family, I loved everything about it. I was psyched to get her new release.
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated They Almost Always Come Home in Books
Apr 27, 2018
They Almost Always Come Home by Cynthia Ruchti
Genre: Christian Fiction
ISBN: 9781426702389
Rating: DNF, 3
Greg goes on a trip into the Canadian wilderness—and never comes home. But Libby was thinking about leaving him anyway… so should she care that he's missing? Should she find him? Libby sets off with her best friend and her step-dad on a journey to find Greg. But for Libby, the journey is more than to find her husband. It's a journey of faith.
They Almost Always Come Home had potential to be amazing. Maybe the ending was amazing… but I didn't get that far. The plot was great—there were a lot of different things woven together to make it complex. It was more than "husband is gone, wife isn't sure if she wants him back but she goes to find him anyway." There is a lot of complexity to the situation, and a lot of background to see how Libby got to where she is now. It was good, and I liked it. It didn't move fast enough for me, but it was still good and I liked it.
However, other aspects of the book took away from the story line, and the main one was the writing. I feel like I have more to say about the writing than anything when it comes to They Almost Always Come Home.
This book reads rather depressing. As I read it, I can hear the voice of the character in my head, feeling tired and broken and uncaring and bitter, and it's very emotionally demanding to read. Since the character is going through so much, I can understand why that is: that's how she feels, that's how you are supposed to feel. It certainly isn't a sit-by-the-beach-with-sweet-tea kind of book.
Also, occasionally (as in the case with every Meg Cabot book I've ever read) an individual has a great original idea for a novel. What they should have done, would be to find someone who could write well and let them write the story, and co-author it. But no, they insist on writing it themselves, even though they can't write. Sadly, this is the case with They Almost Always Come Home. In some cases the mediocrity of the writing doesn't take away from the enjoyment of the book, but in this case, it got to the point where it wore me out and aggravated me, and I had to put it down. After this happened several times, I never ended up picking it back up. The writing was made up of poor sentence structure, and the sentences that were actually sentences weren't organized very well. The interior monologue of Libby's thought-life was even less organized. Yes, I understand that our thoughts are not perfectly organized like Dostoevsky's dialogue, but Libby's mind was just hard to follow.
The other thing that took away from the book was the main character, Libby. I didn't like her. Maybe if I'd gotten to the end and seen her change (because I just know she's got to change—why else would Ruchti write a story like this?) then I 'd like her. But as it were, I was rooting for Greg. Poor Greg who was stuck with her for twenty-five years, and who got out easy (at least that's the way it looked from where I stopped). I know that isn't the way I'm supposed to feel, but I kept thinking "Libby… honestly…(mutters to herself)…" how can you read a book about a character that you don't like?
Again, this book had a lot of potential. Sadly I didn't enjoy it enough to finish it. I give it three-stars for the good pacing at the beginning, and the tangible emotions of the character (who I didn't like…?).
Check out amazon (as of today, 17 five-star reviews) and goodreads for reviews of They Almost Always Come Home. You will see that I am in the minority.
Genre: Christian Fiction
ISBN: 9781426702389
Rating: DNF, 3
Greg goes on a trip into the Canadian wilderness—and never comes home. But Libby was thinking about leaving him anyway… so should she care that he's missing? Should she find him? Libby sets off with her best friend and her step-dad on a journey to find Greg. But for Libby, the journey is more than to find her husband. It's a journey of faith.
They Almost Always Come Home had potential to be amazing. Maybe the ending was amazing… but I didn't get that far. The plot was great—there were a lot of different things woven together to make it complex. It was more than "husband is gone, wife isn't sure if she wants him back but she goes to find him anyway." There is a lot of complexity to the situation, and a lot of background to see how Libby got to where she is now. It was good, and I liked it. It didn't move fast enough for me, but it was still good and I liked it.
However, other aspects of the book took away from the story line, and the main one was the writing. I feel like I have more to say about the writing than anything when it comes to They Almost Always Come Home.
This book reads rather depressing. As I read it, I can hear the voice of the character in my head, feeling tired and broken and uncaring and bitter, and it's very emotionally demanding to read. Since the character is going through so much, I can understand why that is: that's how she feels, that's how you are supposed to feel. It certainly isn't a sit-by-the-beach-with-sweet-tea kind of book.
Also, occasionally (as in the case with every Meg Cabot book I've ever read) an individual has a great original idea for a novel. What they should have done, would be to find someone who could write well and let them write the story, and co-author it. But no, they insist on writing it themselves, even though they can't write. Sadly, this is the case with They Almost Always Come Home. In some cases the mediocrity of the writing doesn't take away from the enjoyment of the book, but in this case, it got to the point where it wore me out and aggravated me, and I had to put it down. After this happened several times, I never ended up picking it back up. The writing was made up of poor sentence structure, and the sentences that were actually sentences weren't organized very well. The interior monologue of Libby's thought-life was even less organized. Yes, I understand that our thoughts are not perfectly organized like Dostoevsky's dialogue, but Libby's mind was just hard to follow.
The other thing that took away from the book was the main character, Libby. I didn't like her. Maybe if I'd gotten to the end and seen her change (because I just know she's got to change—why else would Ruchti write a story like this?) then I 'd like her. But as it were, I was rooting for Greg. Poor Greg who was stuck with her for twenty-five years, and who got out easy (at least that's the way it looked from where I stopped). I know that isn't the way I'm supposed to feel, but I kept thinking "Libby… honestly…(mutters to herself)…" how can you read a book about a character that you don't like?
Again, this book had a lot of potential. Sadly I didn't enjoy it enough to finish it. I give it three-stars for the good pacing at the beginning, and the tangible emotions of the character (who I didn't like…?).
Check out amazon (as of today, 17 five-star reviews) and goodreads for reviews of They Almost Always Come Home. You will see that I am in the minority.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated American Gods in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I have only ever read one other adult book ( I don't count Coraline) by Gaiman, which was vastly different from this book in both style and mood - Stardust. A friend recommended I read this book many years ago since I like mythology. I found this book really had not much to do with mythology in the classic sense. Instead the characters that were pulled from mythology, such as Odin, Anansi, Horus, Bast, and Ganesha, among others, behaved like has-been D-list celebrities that struggle to survive in a country that is repeatedly described as "...a bad land for gods." The powers they rarely put on display were minimal and amounted to the same kind of "magic" as a skilled pick-pocket, con-artist, or amateur magician. The few times any real power is observed is once during the sexual scene of a re-invented Queen of Sheba (I'll spare you the R-rated details) and when the gods travel "behind the scenes," a state of existence that only the gods can enter.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.