Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Eon: Dragoneye Reborn (Eon, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Both books are extremely long, but Eon and Eona are one of the best dragon books I've read - out of the few I've read so far.
Eon does start out pretty slow. It takes awhile for something to happen, and there's a political struggle for a good chunk in the middle - a complete (and perhaps unnecessary at times) possibility as to why the book was extremely long in the first place.
Eona, as Eon at the time, was an extremely annoying character. It takes her AGES to connect all the dots and she's extremely desperate to fit in. It's almost as though she hates being a female, even though she gets points for being a sword-wielding, kick-butt, no-nonsense character.
Eona, on the other hand, is longer than Eon. After the events of Eon, the Empire of Celestial Dragons are in chaos, and Eona and her allies are on the run.
Eon has now stopped with her disguise, but I don't like her any better than I liked Eona puttering around like a boy. In Eon, Eona was just desperate to fit in and make herself seem worthy. In the sequel, Eona just argues FAR too much with Kygo.
Eona, however long, definitely makes up for the many dull moments in the first book. It's much more engrossing and action-packed, bringing a fantastic end to two very long books.
<b>Eon</b> - Full Review
Blog: <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-eon-by-alison-goodman.html">http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-eon-by-alison-goodman.html</a>;
Goodreads: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1038182170?book_show_action=false">https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1038182170?book_show_action=false</a>;
<b>Eona</b> - Full Review
Blog: <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/review-eona-by-alison-goodman.html">http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/review-eona-by-alison-goodman.html</a>;
Goodreads: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1134057091?book_show_action=false">https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1134057091?book_show_action=false</a>;
Merged review:
The entire idea behind Eon, according to the Alison Goodman's note at the very last page of the book, was inspired by the cultures and histories of China and Japan. Of course I would be completely excited because I'm Chinese myself and dragons are wonderfully majestic and mystic creatures. I had to read it!
I also had to read it because I would then have the opportunity to not only debate with the only guy in book club (who actually recommended the book to me in the first place... are you happy?), but I would also get to throw a book at said guy. Actually, it would be throwing the book first, run away, and then maybe debate about it. But one can't debate when one runs away.
In reality, I did get the chance to smack him with Eon. He then "abused" me with his scarf throughout Lit class. One day, I plan to steal that scarf and hide it.
I don't intend to ever give it back either.
Eon is a fabulous idea. And I mean, phenomenal. The best dragon book I've ever read despite the flaws and not so phenomenal things, even though the amount of dragon books I've read in the past is relatively small. Goodman has certainly done a fantastic job with the world building of the Empire of Celestial Dragons and the dragons itself – a brief history of the Dragoneyes and the Dragons are compressed at the very beginning of the book (it was a bit confusing to me) and the rest is filled in throughout the process of the book.
I have to say I'm impressed. Quite impressed compared to my latest reads (Okay, they're not shabby, but I wasn't overly excited about them either).
The beginning of the book lacked a bit of what would have made the book so much better. All Eon and the other Dragoneye candidates do is train, train, train. Eon is made fun of by everyone – including his Swordmaster! – because he's not like the others, etc. Basically, life is all about that misery for Eon and the book follows the same pattern over and over again: train, disdain, train, disdain, train, disdain.
Oh, and it doesn't help he's really a girl, though approximately 99.9% of the people don't know (they do know he's crippled). I'm pretty confused as to what gender to use in this particular review. That, however, does not mean I'm a sexist. All I can say to this entire ordeal is the mere fact that it seems Eon is trying too hard to hide her true self. Not a problem with me because of the time period Goodman sets Eon in. But with the amount of Sun drugs she takes later in the book – I think those so called Sun drugs are simply crack – in an attempt to connect with the Mirror Dragon, it's really obvious Eon is desperate enough to fit in and prove herself worthy of being a part of the Dragoneye council.
It's not until the anticipation of finding out who the new Rat Dragoneye apprentice will be does the book become interesting. The majority of the rest becomes more of a political struggle among the Dragoneye council and the Empire of Celestial Dragons as Eon continues her training as the one and only Mirror Dragoneye since the last 500 years, with the pressure of the Emperor's supporters resting on her shoulders.
Quite a burden to bear. Plus, the middle seemed to drag a bit (read: political struggle). It even got to the point where I actually thought Eon would be better off if the story had been split into two books and the series into a trilogy instead of duology.
It didn't help with Eon as a character either. She is, by far, one of the most annoying characters I've ever met. Here's a bit of a sidenote: There aren't many Asians as main characters. They're usually the peeps on the sidelines, and even that rarely happens. When they ARE main characters, they're usually a sword-wielding, kick-butt, no-nonsense type of character (or they seem to be annoyingly stereotyped and I hate it, so I don't even bother reading it in the first place). And while Goodman does incorporate all of that in Eon's character (the kick-butt, not the stereotype), it was still very annoying to see Eon puttering about and taking forever to connect the dots (read: desperate to fit in).
The ending gets better – much better – than the beginning and the middle (read: beginning = training + disdain, middle = political struggle + desperation). The fantastic ending probably made up for the hiccups earlier throughout and possibly changed my mind about wanting to split the book in half. Eon is a semi-phenomenal ending to a phenomenal idea in a not so phenomenal first book in a duology, and I've yet to decide whether I should give the sequel a whirl to see if it improves compared to Eon.
<blockquote>Friendship is not something that can be forced.</blockquote>
(Except for one of my friends. According to him, he forced his way into us being friends. *sigh*)
--------------------
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-eon-by-alison-goodman.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>
Eon does start out pretty slow. It takes awhile for something to happen, and there's a political struggle for a good chunk in the middle - a complete (and perhaps unnecessary at times) possibility as to why the book was extremely long in the first place.
Eona, as Eon at the time, was an extremely annoying character. It takes her AGES to connect all the dots and she's extremely desperate to fit in. It's almost as though she hates being a female, even though she gets points for being a sword-wielding, kick-butt, no-nonsense character.
Eona, on the other hand, is longer than Eon. After the events of Eon, the Empire of Celestial Dragons are in chaos, and Eona and her allies are on the run.
Eon has now stopped with her disguise, but I don't like her any better than I liked Eona puttering around like a boy. In Eon, Eona was just desperate to fit in and make herself seem worthy. In the sequel, Eona just argues FAR too much with Kygo.
Eona, however long, definitely makes up for the many dull moments in the first book. It's much more engrossing and action-packed, bringing a fantastic end to two very long books.
<b>Eon</b> - Full Review
Blog: <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-eon-by-alison-goodman.html">http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-eon-by-alison-goodman.html</a>;
Goodreads: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1038182170?book_show_action=false">https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1038182170?book_show_action=false</a>;
<b>Eona</b> - Full Review
Blog: <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/review-eona-by-alison-goodman.html">http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/review-eona-by-alison-goodman.html</a>;
Goodreads: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1134057091?book_show_action=false">https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1134057091?book_show_action=false</a>;
Merged review:
The entire idea behind Eon, according to the Alison Goodman's note at the very last page of the book, was inspired by the cultures and histories of China and Japan. Of course I would be completely excited because I'm Chinese myself and dragons are wonderfully majestic and mystic creatures. I had to read it!
I also had to read it because I would then have the opportunity to not only debate with the only guy in book club (who actually recommended the book to me in the first place... are you happy?), but I would also get to throw a book at said guy. Actually, it would be throwing the book first, run away, and then maybe debate about it. But one can't debate when one runs away.
In reality, I did get the chance to smack him with Eon. He then "abused" me with his scarf throughout Lit class. One day, I plan to steal that scarf and hide it.
I don't intend to ever give it back either.
Eon is a fabulous idea. And I mean, phenomenal. The best dragon book I've ever read despite the flaws and not so phenomenal things, even though the amount of dragon books I've read in the past is relatively small. Goodman has certainly done a fantastic job with the world building of the Empire of Celestial Dragons and the dragons itself – a brief history of the Dragoneyes and the Dragons are compressed at the very beginning of the book (it was a bit confusing to me) and the rest is filled in throughout the process of the book.
I have to say I'm impressed. Quite impressed compared to my latest reads (Okay, they're not shabby, but I wasn't overly excited about them either).
The beginning of the book lacked a bit of what would have made the book so much better. All Eon and the other Dragoneye candidates do is train, train, train. Eon is made fun of by everyone – including his Swordmaster! – because he's not like the others, etc. Basically, life is all about that misery for Eon and the book follows the same pattern over and over again: train, disdain, train, disdain, train, disdain.
Oh, and it doesn't help he's really a girl, though approximately 99.9% of the people don't know (they do know he's crippled). I'm pretty confused as to what gender to use in this particular review. That, however, does not mean I'm a sexist. All I can say to this entire ordeal is the mere fact that it seems Eon is trying too hard to hide her true self. Not a problem with me because of the time period Goodman sets Eon in. But with the amount of Sun drugs she takes later in the book – I think those so called Sun drugs are simply crack – in an attempt to connect with the Mirror Dragon, it's really obvious Eon is desperate enough to fit in and prove herself worthy of being a part of the Dragoneye council.
It's not until the anticipation of finding out who the new Rat Dragoneye apprentice will be does the book become interesting. The majority of the rest becomes more of a political struggle among the Dragoneye council and the Empire of Celestial Dragons as Eon continues her training as the one and only Mirror Dragoneye since the last 500 years, with the pressure of the Emperor's supporters resting on her shoulders.
Quite a burden to bear. Plus, the middle seemed to drag a bit (read: political struggle). It even got to the point where I actually thought Eon would be better off if the story had been split into two books and the series into a trilogy instead of duology.
It didn't help with Eon as a character either. She is, by far, one of the most annoying characters I've ever met. Here's a bit of a sidenote: There aren't many Asians as main characters. They're usually the peeps on the sidelines, and even that rarely happens. When they ARE main characters, they're usually a sword-wielding, kick-butt, no-nonsense type of character (or they seem to be annoyingly stereotyped and I hate it, so I don't even bother reading it in the first place). And while Goodman does incorporate all of that in Eon's character (the kick-butt, not the stereotype), it was still very annoying to see Eon puttering about and taking forever to connect the dots (read: desperate to fit in).
The ending gets better – much better – than the beginning and the middle (read: beginning = training + disdain, middle = political struggle + desperation). The fantastic ending probably made up for the hiccups earlier throughout and possibly changed my mind about wanting to split the book in half. Eon is a semi-phenomenal ending to a phenomenal idea in a not so phenomenal first book in a duology, and I've yet to decide whether I should give the sequel a whirl to see if it improves compared to Eon.
<blockquote>Friendship is not something that can be forced.</blockquote>
(Except for one of my friends. According to him, he forced his way into us being friends. *sigh*)
--------------------
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-eon-by-alison-goodman.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>
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Crime and Punishment in Books
Apr 27, 2018
**spoilers**
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. read by Anthony Heald.
Genre: Fiction, classic
Rating: 5
Sin, Sentence, and Salvation
The allegory of Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment, one of the more famous works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, is considered “the first great novel of his mature period,” (Frank, 1995) and is one of his more famous books, rivaled only by The Brothers Karamazov. What makes Crime and Punishment such a classic? Perhaps because it is a picture of the only classic, and greatest story of all time. Crime and Punishment is an allegory of Salvation.
Self-justified
The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, was a poor student at a university, and was overcome with hate toward an old pawnbroker, and decided to rid the world of her for the greater good of everyone. He believed that she was a “louse,” and since everyone would be happier without her, his actions would be justified. He believed that he had broken the letter of the law only, but that it didn’t have any authority over him anyway because it was written by people just as low as himself. He didn’t believe in God, and in prison he was convinced that he didn’t deserve his treatment, and that it was something he simply needed to get over with. He had no higher authority, so he said “my conscience is at rest.” This is a picture of man before he is touched by the merciful salvation of Christ.
A Troubled Man
Although Raskolnikov justified his actions in killing the old woman, he still felt an overwhelming sense of guilt and fear over what he did. He worked very hard at keeping it a secret, and at first he thought he could live with the guilt that sat in back of his mind, but he was wrong. Raskolnikov had horrible dreams, was always sick, and one of the other characters noticed that he was constantly “set off by little things” for no apparent reason (though the reader knew that it was only because it reminded him of his crime). This represents a man who knows in his heart that he is a sinner, but who will not turn and repent from his sin.
Unending Love
Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov was the daughter of a drunkard who “took the yellow card” and prostituted herself to support her family. Throughout the book, Sonya began to love Raskolnikov. Eventually, Raskolnikov told Sonya his secret. Sonya was horrified, but still loved him and forgave him after her initial shock wore off. As Raskolnikov was fighting inside with his conscience and his sins, he repeatedly snapped at her, refused her comfort, yelled at her, and so on. He was a bitter, angry, hateful man—and yet Sonya forgave him for everything he did to her, and everything he had done in his past. What redeeming quality Sonya saw in the wretch and why she forgave him, one cannot begin to comprehend; aside from the simple truth that Sonya was a loving, gentile, merciful girl. She saw that Raskolnikov needed someone to love him and she reached out to him, even when he repeatedly pushed her away. Sonya’s love for him is a picture of Christ’s unending and perfect love to His sinful people.
A Silent Witness
When Raskolnikov finally broke down and confessed his crime, Sonya moved to Siberia with him. Raskolnikov expected this, and knew that telling her not to come would be fruitless. She visited him often in prison and wrote to his family for him. But although Raskolnikov expected her to preach to him and push the Gospel in his face, she did not. Sonya followed the scripture’s instruction to Christian wives with non-Christian husbands in 1 Peter 3:1—“ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives…” The verse tells women to be good examples of Christ to their non-Christian husbands rather than to preach to them and try to convert them, and that is exactly what Sonya did, even though she was not married to him. She did not try to convert him with words; rather she won him with her love. She did not push the Testament into Raskolnikov’s hands, he asked for it. When she did bring it, she did not pester him to read it. She had faith, and showed Raskolnikov the love of Christ through her actions. In the end, it paid off. Although Dostoevsky does not specifically say that Raskolnikov was converted, he does imply that he eventually became a Christian when he mused “Can not her own convictions now be mine?”
The truth will set you free
When Raskolnikov finally realized that he loved Sonya, he accepted that he was a criminal, and a murderer. When he finally accepted that he was a sinner, he repented and had a new life in him. He said he felt like “he had risen again” and that Sonya “lived only in his life.” By life, Dostoevsky refers to his mentality. Before, he had been a living dead man in prison. He was hated by his inmates, was almost killed by them in an outbreak, was unaffected by anything that happened to him or his family, and eventually became ill from it all. But after his resurrection, he repented from his sins, learned to move on with his life, and started to change. He began to converse with his inmates, and they no longer hated him. Sonya was alive in his “life” because of her love for him. When he was changed, she was so happy that she became sick with joy, to the point that she was ill in bed. Dostoevsky paints a picture of a redeemed man at the end of his novel—redeemed both by the law, and by God. This picture symbolizes the miracle of salvation through Christ.
An amazing Allegory
Dostoevsky was a wonderful writer because of his use of dialogue to tell the story, his descriptive scenes, his powerfully developed characters, and their inner dialogue. He often times told you that something was happening by only telling you what the character who was speaking at the time said in response to what was going on. For example, if Sonya was standing up, Dostoevsky would write “… ‘hey, what do you stand for?’ for Sonya had stood.”
He also painted such good descriptions of his characters, that by the middle of the book he didn’t have to say that Raskolnikov was musing in the corner of the room, glaring at anyone who was brave enough to look at him, while he stewed in grief under his old ratted cap, because you knew from how well he was described earlier and how well his character was developed from the dialogue, that he was doing exactly that.
His characters are so real, they almost frighten you because you see the things they do and feel and experience reflected in your own life. They are not perfect—in fact they are all incredibly flawed, but they are a joy to read.
His ending is superb, because he closes the story without actually telling you everything. He never says that Raskolnikov was converted, he never says when he got out of prison, and he never says that Sonya and he were married, but you know that it happened. The last scene of the story is so superb, it makes you want to read it again, just to experience the joy all over again.
But what really made Crime and Punishment the classic that it was is the picture of the best story in the world, the classic story of the world, showing through. The story of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ’s unending love and sin and salvation is clearly portrayed, and makes a joyous read.
Works cited:
Quotes are from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1886
Frank, Joseph (1995). Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865–1871. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01587-2. (source found and taken from Wikipedia.com)
1 Peter 3:1 New International Version of The Holy Bible
Audio review: I had a hard time reading the book, simply because it was so huge that it was intimidating. I bought (ouch) the audio book of Crime and Punishment, recorded by Anthony Heald who did a fantastic job reading. His voices for the characters perfectly matched them, he felt for them, and he acted them. None of them were cheesy (yeah you all know how lame some male readers are at acting female voices). He read fast enough that the story didn't drag at all, but not so fast that you'd feel like you'd miss something if you didn't listen hard. I will definitely re-listen to the audio book.
Content: some gruesome descriptions of blood from the murder
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. read by Anthony Heald.
Genre: Fiction, classic
Rating: 5
Sin, Sentence, and Salvation
The allegory of Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment, one of the more famous works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, is considered “the first great novel of his mature period,” (Frank, 1995) and is one of his more famous books, rivaled only by The Brothers Karamazov. What makes Crime and Punishment such a classic? Perhaps because it is a picture of the only classic, and greatest story of all time. Crime and Punishment is an allegory of Salvation.
Self-justified
The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, was a poor student at a university, and was overcome with hate toward an old pawnbroker, and decided to rid the world of her for the greater good of everyone. He believed that she was a “louse,” and since everyone would be happier without her, his actions would be justified. He believed that he had broken the letter of the law only, but that it didn’t have any authority over him anyway because it was written by people just as low as himself. He didn’t believe in God, and in prison he was convinced that he didn’t deserve his treatment, and that it was something he simply needed to get over with. He had no higher authority, so he said “my conscience is at rest.” This is a picture of man before he is touched by the merciful salvation of Christ.
A Troubled Man
Although Raskolnikov justified his actions in killing the old woman, he still felt an overwhelming sense of guilt and fear over what he did. He worked very hard at keeping it a secret, and at first he thought he could live with the guilt that sat in back of his mind, but he was wrong. Raskolnikov had horrible dreams, was always sick, and one of the other characters noticed that he was constantly “set off by little things” for no apparent reason (though the reader knew that it was only because it reminded him of his crime). This represents a man who knows in his heart that he is a sinner, but who will not turn and repent from his sin.
Unending Love
Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov was the daughter of a drunkard who “took the yellow card” and prostituted herself to support her family. Throughout the book, Sonya began to love Raskolnikov. Eventually, Raskolnikov told Sonya his secret. Sonya was horrified, but still loved him and forgave him after her initial shock wore off. As Raskolnikov was fighting inside with his conscience and his sins, he repeatedly snapped at her, refused her comfort, yelled at her, and so on. He was a bitter, angry, hateful man—and yet Sonya forgave him for everything he did to her, and everything he had done in his past. What redeeming quality Sonya saw in the wretch and why she forgave him, one cannot begin to comprehend; aside from the simple truth that Sonya was a loving, gentile, merciful girl. She saw that Raskolnikov needed someone to love him and she reached out to him, even when he repeatedly pushed her away. Sonya’s love for him is a picture of Christ’s unending and perfect love to His sinful people.
A Silent Witness
When Raskolnikov finally broke down and confessed his crime, Sonya moved to Siberia with him. Raskolnikov expected this, and knew that telling her not to come would be fruitless. She visited him often in prison and wrote to his family for him. But although Raskolnikov expected her to preach to him and push the Gospel in his face, she did not. Sonya followed the scripture’s instruction to Christian wives with non-Christian husbands in 1 Peter 3:1—“ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives…” The verse tells women to be good examples of Christ to their non-Christian husbands rather than to preach to them and try to convert them, and that is exactly what Sonya did, even though she was not married to him. She did not try to convert him with words; rather she won him with her love. She did not push the Testament into Raskolnikov’s hands, he asked for it. When she did bring it, she did not pester him to read it. She had faith, and showed Raskolnikov the love of Christ through her actions. In the end, it paid off. Although Dostoevsky does not specifically say that Raskolnikov was converted, he does imply that he eventually became a Christian when he mused “Can not her own convictions now be mine?”
The truth will set you free
When Raskolnikov finally realized that he loved Sonya, he accepted that he was a criminal, and a murderer. When he finally accepted that he was a sinner, he repented and had a new life in him. He said he felt like “he had risen again” and that Sonya “lived only in his life.” By life, Dostoevsky refers to his mentality. Before, he had been a living dead man in prison. He was hated by his inmates, was almost killed by them in an outbreak, was unaffected by anything that happened to him or his family, and eventually became ill from it all. But after his resurrection, he repented from his sins, learned to move on with his life, and started to change. He began to converse with his inmates, and they no longer hated him. Sonya was alive in his “life” because of her love for him. When he was changed, she was so happy that she became sick with joy, to the point that she was ill in bed. Dostoevsky paints a picture of a redeemed man at the end of his novel—redeemed both by the law, and by God. This picture symbolizes the miracle of salvation through Christ.
An amazing Allegory
Dostoevsky was a wonderful writer because of his use of dialogue to tell the story, his descriptive scenes, his powerfully developed characters, and their inner dialogue. He often times told you that something was happening by only telling you what the character who was speaking at the time said in response to what was going on. For example, if Sonya was standing up, Dostoevsky would write “… ‘hey, what do you stand for?’ for Sonya had stood.”
He also painted such good descriptions of his characters, that by the middle of the book he didn’t have to say that Raskolnikov was musing in the corner of the room, glaring at anyone who was brave enough to look at him, while he stewed in grief under his old ratted cap, because you knew from how well he was described earlier and how well his character was developed from the dialogue, that he was doing exactly that.
His characters are so real, they almost frighten you because you see the things they do and feel and experience reflected in your own life. They are not perfect—in fact they are all incredibly flawed, but they are a joy to read.
His ending is superb, because he closes the story without actually telling you everything. He never says that Raskolnikov was converted, he never says when he got out of prison, and he never says that Sonya and he were married, but you know that it happened. The last scene of the story is so superb, it makes you want to read it again, just to experience the joy all over again.
But what really made Crime and Punishment the classic that it was is the picture of the best story in the world, the classic story of the world, showing through. The story of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ’s unending love and sin and salvation is clearly portrayed, and makes a joyous read.
Works cited:
Quotes are from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1886
Frank, Joseph (1995). Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865–1871. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01587-2. (source found and taken from Wikipedia.com)
1 Peter 3:1 New International Version of The Holy Bible
Audio review: I had a hard time reading the book, simply because it was so huge that it was intimidating. I bought (ouch) the audio book of Crime and Punishment, recorded by Anthony Heald who did a fantastic job reading. His voices for the characters perfectly matched them, he felt for them, and he acted them. None of them were cheesy (yeah you all know how lame some male readers are at acting female voices). He read fast enough that the story didn't drag at all, but not so fast that you'd feel like you'd miss something if you didn't listen hard. I will definitely re-listen to the audio book.
Content: some gruesome descriptions of blood from the murder
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Contains spoilers, click to show
Where to begin with my review? I guess I should start out by being completely honest and mentioning that I did not buy Cinder for myself, and I likely never would have either. After begging me to read it for a while, my best friend ended up buying me a copy for Christmas in the hope that I would give it a go. And to be fair to her, I did. Four times to be precise. The first three times I ended up giving up before chapter four. However, don't let that deter you. On my fourth attempt, I loved it! The only reason I can think of as to why I struggled the other times was because I was in a serious book hangover from another story. So I was a little reluctant to start a new story with characters I wasn't invested in yet, and a story I already knew. Or at least, I thought I did.
So let's start with the plot. Cinder is a retelling of Cinderella. Perhaps another reason for my lack of interest in the beginning as I've never really been a huge fan of that particular princess. What I do enjoy is a fresh twist on a well known story, so I should have known I would enjoy it if I gave it a chance. Like Cinderella, Cinder follows the story of a young girl who lives with her step-mother, and her two step-sisters, no love lost between them. In both, the girl leads a tough, though somewhat mundane life, right up until she meets her prince, and then things start to look up. Blah, blah, blah... We all know the story right? No. Marissa Meyer gives the traditional tale a new spin, and it was like reading the story for the first time. Because of this, I easily finished the story over one (busy) weekend. The story contained just the right mix of adventure, romance, and sci-fi to keep me hooked, even if -in places- the story seemed to drag a little. This was more than made up for with the explosive ending though. The story ends with enough unresolved conflict to keep you wanting more... And if you're anything like me, thankfully you don't have to wait months for the next one (It's called Scarlet BTW). Another great part of this story was the world building and backstory. At one point, the events of WW4 are mentioned, giving us a little insight as to how the world we know morphed into the one in the story. This also prevented the world from becoming too complicated when other races (The Lunars) are introduced, and helped blend the backstories of both races nicely. Lunars are the genetically mutated humans that live on the moon (Luna), and they have the ability to use a power known as "Glamour" to influence other's minds and make them see and believe what they want them to. This particular part impressed me as it was a clever way of introducing magic in an otherwise "normal" world. Because I'm a sucker for a bit of magic. The only real problem I had with this story was that the plot was somewhat predictable at times... For example, pretty much as soon as it was mentioned that there was once a princess who -if she was still alive- could usurp the Queen of the Lunars and restore peace to the two worlds... It was obvious that it was going to end up being Cinder. (This is confirmed at the end of the book).
Now, onto the characters! Meet our protagonist, Linh Cinder. Cinder is a sixteen-year-old living in New Beijing with her evil Step-mother and two step-sisters... But that's pretty much where the similarities with her and the traditional Cinderella end. Not only is our protagonist more than just a pretty face with a kind heart, she is a badass! Throughout the story she impressed me with her attitude, intelligence, and ability to call people out on their bullshit. Fair enough she came across a little whiny at times, but this can be overlooked when you remember she is pretty much still a child who has had a pretty rough life. Unable to remember her life before a crash that claimed the lives of her family, she was adopted by a man who soon died, leaving her at the mercy of his wife, who was not a fan of Cinder. Why, you ask? Well, Cinder is a cyborg, and that is unforgivable and clearly Cinder's fault... According to the step mother at least. Still, despite being shunned by most people who knew the truth about her, Cinder still manages to be a likable character. Yeah she has her flaws, but that's what I liked about her. She's realistic. She's embarrassed by the fact she is a cyborg, especially when she meets the handsome Prince Kai. It was frustrating at times to read scenes with these two, mainly because Cinder was reluctant to tell Kai about her being a cyborg, and it built a wall between them. I mean, I can see where she's coming from. It would be a nice change to just be a normal girl to someone after years of being told she was less. BUT DAMN GIRL! KAI IS A CINNAMON ROLL AND WOULD LOVE YOU EITHER WAY!!!
*Clears throat* Anyway, moving on... Now we can talk about Kai. Handsome, charming, clueless, Prince Kai. We meet Kai pretty early on in the story (first chapter in fact) and from the moment we meet him, we know he and Cinder are destined. Or at least I hope so... I haven't read the second book yet! The only child of the emperor, Kai will someday rule the Eastern Commonwealth. Unfortunately that day comes all too soon when his father contracts the plague and soon after dies, leaving the job to the young Prince. If I'm being completely honest, I was expecting him to crash and burn at some point, but I was pleasantly surprised when he managed to hack it, even going as far as to stand up to the Lunar Queen- A megabitch we will discuss later- despite the fact she could start a war that would cause chaos for the Earthlings. His character development was fun to read. He started as a charismatic prince with a rebellious streak, and by the end of the book he was an Emperor loyal to his people and smarter than he lets on. I was a little disappointed in his reaction to finding out Cinder was a cyborg (and a Lunar), but under the circumstances, he can be forgiven. I'm quite interested in how the rest of Emperor Kai's story is going to play out, especially as he seemed to have something planned at the end of the first book, but I have yet to see if my suspicions are correct about him.
Now time to talk about our main antagonist, Queen Levana AKA The Megabitch. As far as antagonists go, she isn't the most evil I've met, but she is one of the more interesting. Queen of the Lunars, she is a cold, flawless, evil lady, who hates technology, and is infamous for using her glamour to hide her true face. Her motives seem pretty simple. She wants to rule. As Queen of the Lunars, she can do this by marriage, or she can take it by force. She doesn't really seem to care which way she goes about it, but she does suggest a marriage alliance with Prince/Emperor Kai Puh-lease. He and Cinder are OTP. (Also, I have to praise Meyer for the lack of a love triangle here, even though it would have been easy enough to include one. Bless you, child!) For the majority of the story she seems to be cool and in control, which is worrying for those of us rooting for the heroes, but at the Ball Naturally Cinder manages to crack the flawless facade and give us a little insight to the Queen's weakness Score 1 for Cinder! I have a feeling though that the next time we see the Queen, she is going to up her game and really give our heroes some problems, but we shall see!
Overall, I really enjoyed Cinder and I'm glad that I gave it another go. I should really start listening when my friend suggests books to me. It was an entertaining, frustrating, and even heart-breaking story at times, but I loved it. Marissa Meyer has definitely earned another fan, and I cannot wait to get my hands on the rest of the series. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO MY SHIP. The book had a few issues of course, but not enough that I would hesitate to read the next book... Hopefully I'll get around to it soon! In the mean time, anyone debating reading Cinder, you should definitely do it! 100%. And if anyone -like me- is struggling to get into it... Stick at it! I swear it's worth it in the end!
So let's start with the plot. Cinder is a retelling of Cinderella. Perhaps another reason for my lack of interest in the beginning as I've never really been a huge fan of that particular princess. What I do enjoy is a fresh twist on a well known story, so I should have known I would enjoy it if I gave it a chance. Like Cinderella, Cinder follows the story of a young girl who lives with her step-mother, and her two step-sisters, no love lost between them. In both, the girl leads a tough, though somewhat mundane life, right up until she meets her prince, and then things start to look up. Blah, blah, blah... We all know the story right? No. Marissa Meyer gives the traditional tale a new spin, and it was like reading the story for the first time. Because of this, I easily finished the story over one (busy) weekend. The story contained just the right mix of adventure, romance, and sci-fi to keep me hooked, even if -in places- the story seemed to drag a little. This was more than made up for with the explosive ending though. The story ends with enough unresolved conflict to keep you wanting more... And if you're anything like me, thankfully you don't have to wait months for the next one (It's called Scarlet BTW). Another great part of this story was the world building and backstory. At one point, the events of WW4 are mentioned, giving us a little insight as to how the world we know morphed into the one in the story. This also prevented the world from becoming too complicated when other races (The Lunars) are introduced, and helped blend the backstories of both races nicely. Lunars are the genetically mutated humans that live on the moon (Luna), and they have the ability to use a power known as "Glamour" to influence other's minds and make them see and believe what they want them to. This particular part impressed me as it was a clever way of introducing magic in an otherwise "normal" world. Because I'm a sucker for a bit of magic. The only real problem I had with this story was that the plot was somewhat predictable at times... For example, pretty much as soon as it was mentioned that there was once a princess who -if she was still alive- could usurp the Queen of the Lunars and restore peace to the two worlds... It was obvious that it was going to end up being Cinder. (This is confirmed at the end of the book).
Now, onto the characters! Meet our protagonist, Linh Cinder. Cinder is a sixteen-year-old living in New Beijing with her evil Step-mother and two step-sisters... But that's pretty much where the similarities with her and the traditional Cinderella end. Not only is our protagonist more than just a pretty face with a kind heart, she is a badass! Throughout the story she impressed me with her attitude, intelligence, and ability to call people out on their bullshit. Fair enough she came across a little whiny at times, but this can be overlooked when you remember she is pretty much still a child who has had a pretty rough life. Unable to remember her life before a crash that claimed the lives of her family, she was adopted by a man who soon died, leaving her at the mercy of his wife, who was not a fan of Cinder. Why, you ask? Well, Cinder is a cyborg, and that is unforgivable and clearly Cinder's fault... According to the step mother at least. Still, despite being shunned by most people who knew the truth about her, Cinder still manages to be a likable character. Yeah she has her flaws, but that's what I liked about her. She's realistic. She's embarrassed by the fact she is a cyborg, especially when she meets the handsome Prince Kai. It was frustrating at times to read scenes with these two, mainly because Cinder was reluctant to tell Kai about her being a cyborg, and it built a wall between them. I mean, I can see where she's coming from. It would be a nice change to just be a normal girl to someone after years of being told she was less. BUT DAMN GIRL! KAI IS A CINNAMON ROLL AND WOULD LOVE YOU EITHER WAY!!!
*Clears throat* Anyway, moving on... Now we can talk about Kai. Handsome, charming, clueless, Prince Kai. We meet Kai pretty early on in the story (first chapter in fact) and from the moment we meet him, we know he and Cinder are destined. Or at least I hope so... I haven't read the second book yet! The only child of the emperor, Kai will someday rule the Eastern Commonwealth. Unfortunately that day comes all too soon when his father contracts the plague and soon after dies, leaving the job to the young Prince. If I'm being completely honest, I was expecting him to crash and burn at some point, but I was pleasantly surprised when he managed to hack it, even going as far as to stand up to the Lunar Queen- A megabitch we will discuss later- despite the fact she could start a war that would cause chaos for the Earthlings. His character development was fun to read. He started as a charismatic prince with a rebellious streak, and by the end of the book he was an Emperor loyal to his people and smarter than he lets on. I was a little disappointed in his reaction to finding out Cinder was a cyborg (and a Lunar), but under the circumstances, he can be forgiven. I'm quite interested in how the rest of Emperor Kai's story is going to play out, especially as he seemed to have something planned at the end of the first book, but I have yet to see if my suspicions are correct about him.
Now time to talk about our main antagonist, Queen Levana AKA The Megabitch. As far as antagonists go, she isn't the most evil I've met, but she is one of the more interesting. Queen of the Lunars, she is a cold, flawless, evil lady, who hates technology, and is infamous for using her glamour to hide her true face. Her motives seem pretty simple. She wants to rule. As Queen of the Lunars, she can do this by marriage, or she can take it by force. She doesn't really seem to care which way she goes about it, but she does suggest a marriage alliance with Prince/Emperor Kai Puh-lease. He and Cinder are OTP. (Also, I have to praise Meyer for the lack of a love triangle here, even though it would have been easy enough to include one. Bless you, child!) For the majority of the story she seems to be cool and in control, which is worrying for those of us rooting for the heroes, but at the Ball Naturally Cinder manages to crack the flawless facade and give us a little insight to the Queen's weakness Score 1 for Cinder! I have a feeling though that the next time we see the Queen, she is going to up her game and really give our heroes some problems, but we shall see!
Overall, I really enjoyed Cinder and I'm glad that I gave it another go. I should really start listening when my friend suggests books to me. It was an entertaining, frustrating, and even heart-breaking story at times, but I loved it. Marissa Meyer has definitely earned another fan, and I cannot wait to get my hands on the rest of the series. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO MY SHIP. The book had a few issues of course, but not enough that I would hesitate to read the next book... Hopefully I'll get around to it soon! In the mean time, anyone debating reading Cinder, you should definitely do it! 100%. And if anyone -like me- is struggling to get into it... Stick at it! I swear it's worth it in the end!
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Neil Patrick Harris is delightfully devious. (1 more)
MacFarlane shows he has potential in his on-screen acting debut.
The humor is at times very vulgar and immature. (2 more)
The film is slow-paced and overly long.
"A Dozen Ways to Die in the West" would have been a more appropriate title.
A Million Ways to Die in the West is good for a few laughs but it feels like it goes on unreasonably long. Still, if you're a fan of MacFarlane's other works, you'll most likely enjoy his parody of the Old West.
Following the success of his directorial debut, Ted, Seth MacFarlane steps in front of the movie camera for the first time in his new film, A Million Ways to Die in the West. MacFarlane is best known as the creator of the popular animated television series, Family Guy, and he was also the host of the Oscars just two years ago. Now he’s taking the starring role in a film he wrote and directed himself. Here MacFarlane plays a cowardly sheep farmer named Albert who is miserably living in the dangerous Old West. Or rather, the not-so-dangerous Old West. Despite what the title suggests, there’s not a whole lot of dying going on in A Million Ways to Die in the West. You won’t find a whole lot of substance either, but there are a fair amount of laughs if you’re able to tolerate the crude toilet humor and dirty jokes. All in all, MacFarlane does a decent job in this comedy, but his jokes stick too close to his own conventions, and much like life on the frontier, the film can be kind of a drag.
If you’ve ever seen Family Guy, you should feel right at home with the humor in this film. It’s crass, edgy, violent, and full of pop culture references. Although, given that this is an R-rated movie, MacFarlane’s able to push the limits further than usual, and he makes sure to do that by including a lot of raunchy humor and toilet-gags. Oh, and in case you were wondering, yes, male genitals are still the hottest thing in comedy right now. As you’ve no doubt deduced, this is certainly not a film you’d want to take your kids to see. Nor is it for the easily-offended. Though in the film’s defense, it’s not entirely tasteless, and its use of vulgarity isn’t overly frequent. There’s plenty of great slapstick physical comedy and some pretty hilarious dialogue. I laughed more than I thought I would, and was never so disgusted that I wanted to walk out. It’s an entertaining film, it just happens to run a little long and lose momentum down the stretch. Plus the main premise of the film is never all that compelling to begin with.
In A Million Ways to Die in the West, MacFarlane’s character Albert is a man entirely self-aware of the time and place he’s living in, as well as the many dangers that come with it. He sheepishly lives his life, terrified by the threat of death that lurks around every corner. When his beloved girlfriend leaves him for a man with a mighty mustache, Albert has to cowboy up to prove his machismo and try to win her back. Luckily for him, he meets a gun-toting woman named Anna who’s happy to help him face his fears and show him the ropes of being a cowboy. Unfortunately however, this new friendship ends up putting Albert right into the crosshairs of Clinch Leatherwood, the deadliest outlaw around.
While MacFarlane does a respectable job in his first foray into acting, his character feels rather uninspired. I couldn’t help but see him as a hodgepodge of various Family Guy characters, having the clumsiness of Peter Griffin, the self-consciousness of Chris Griffin, and the intelligence and charm of Brian. Given that he created that show, perhaps that should be expected, but it just felt like Albert was lacking a unique and consistent identity. He’s a character who can be charming and funny, but he also comes off seeming like a jerk. All in all, the film has a good cast of actors, with Neil Patrick Harris being the stand-out of the bunch. He plays the pompous, mustached snob, Foy, who steals the heart of Albert’s girlfriend, Louise. Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman are likable as the flawed, clueless couple who serve as Albert’s close friends, Edward and Ruth. Although their characters stay pretty comfortably within the realm of what you would expect from their respective actors, with Edward being the naïve nice guy, while Silverman’s Ruth is the seemingly-sweet-and-innocent, foul-mouthed hussy. Charlize Theron does a fine job as Albert’s mentor, Anna. She has a strong presence in the film and is fun to watch, but despite her best efforts, the emotional element she brings to the story ends up feeling forced and unconvincing. Though that’s no fault of her own. It’s just hard to imagine her, or anyone, falling head over heels so easily and suddenly for a guy like Albert. Then, of course, there’s Liam Neeson, who is effective in his performance as the intimidating villain, Clinch, but would have benefitted from more screen-time.
A Million Ways to Die in the West proficiently parodies the western film genre, capturing the right atmosphere for the setting and time period. Visually it’s a pleasant film to look at, with good camera-work, well-created sets, and lots of beautiful scenery. This makes it all the more disappointing then that the filmmakers decided to place a visual filter over the entirety of the film to give it a more old-fashioned look. As a result, there is a constant flickering throughout the whole movie, and while not quite seizure-inducing, it certainly is distracting. At times you kind of get used to it and forget about it, but it really stands out in scenes with heavy lighting and most of the movie takes place in broad daylight. On the audio side of things, the music is appropriately fitting, but little of it is particularly noteworthy. There is a great song about mustaches, accompanied with a well-orchestrated dance number led by Neil Patrick Harris in what is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the film. Additionally the film’s theme song is appropriately fun. The visual effects in the movie, although limited, are done quite well and nicely add to the film’s comedic effect. Although I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say the movie could have done just fine without all of the animated urinating sheep.
I think the film’s greatest flaw is the fact that it’s doing too much as it tries to incorporate all of the main stereotypes of the western genre. It has duels, bar brawls, jailbreaks, horse chases, and even capture by Indians thrown in for good measure. In trying to cover all of the bases, the movie ends up running too long and becomes a little boring and tired. Rather than building up to a climax, the film diverges with some unnecessary scenes, and then concludes with a lackluster ending. It would have been cool to see Clinch and his group of bandits lay siege to the main town, which could have given the filmmakers an opportunity to create a wide variety of deaths, and allow Albert to exercise his newly developed skills before setting up to an ultimate final showdown. Maybe that would be adding to the long list of clichés, but at least it would have given this slow-paced film some much needed adrenaline and would have made it more true to its misleading title. There are also several cameo appearances in the film, and while a couple of them are great conceptually, I don’t think any of them are quite as satisfying as they should be. They end up feeling out of place, like last-second additions that have no purpose other than to acknowledge other films. I can appreciate the attempt but the cameos aren’t particularly funny and they just seems to emphasize how much better those other films are.
Seth MacFarlane’s A Million Ways to Die in the West is good for a few laughs, but just like his character Albert’s long-winded ramblings, it feels like it goes on unreasonably long. It’s still an entertaining film regardless, and if you’re a fan of MacFarlane’s other work, you’ll most likely enjoy his parody of the Old West. The movie has a talented cast, some truly great scenes such as a bar brawl and a memorable dance, as well as plenty of good old-fashioned slapstick, and witty dialogue. If you can handle the occasional gross-out gag, you’ll probably have a good time. Just don’t expect to actually see the many ways people can die In the Old West. The movie doesn’t show many deaths at all, and all the best ones you likely already saw in the trailer.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 6.3.14.)
If you’ve ever seen Family Guy, you should feel right at home with the humor in this film. It’s crass, edgy, violent, and full of pop culture references. Although, given that this is an R-rated movie, MacFarlane’s able to push the limits further than usual, and he makes sure to do that by including a lot of raunchy humor and toilet-gags. Oh, and in case you were wondering, yes, male genitals are still the hottest thing in comedy right now. As you’ve no doubt deduced, this is certainly not a film you’d want to take your kids to see. Nor is it for the easily-offended. Though in the film’s defense, it’s not entirely tasteless, and its use of vulgarity isn’t overly frequent. There’s plenty of great slapstick physical comedy and some pretty hilarious dialogue. I laughed more than I thought I would, and was never so disgusted that I wanted to walk out. It’s an entertaining film, it just happens to run a little long and lose momentum down the stretch. Plus the main premise of the film is never all that compelling to begin with.
In A Million Ways to Die in the West, MacFarlane’s character Albert is a man entirely self-aware of the time and place he’s living in, as well as the many dangers that come with it. He sheepishly lives his life, terrified by the threat of death that lurks around every corner. When his beloved girlfriend leaves him for a man with a mighty mustache, Albert has to cowboy up to prove his machismo and try to win her back. Luckily for him, he meets a gun-toting woman named Anna who’s happy to help him face his fears and show him the ropes of being a cowboy. Unfortunately however, this new friendship ends up putting Albert right into the crosshairs of Clinch Leatherwood, the deadliest outlaw around.
While MacFarlane does a respectable job in his first foray into acting, his character feels rather uninspired. I couldn’t help but see him as a hodgepodge of various Family Guy characters, having the clumsiness of Peter Griffin, the self-consciousness of Chris Griffin, and the intelligence and charm of Brian. Given that he created that show, perhaps that should be expected, but it just felt like Albert was lacking a unique and consistent identity. He’s a character who can be charming and funny, but he also comes off seeming like a jerk. All in all, the film has a good cast of actors, with Neil Patrick Harris being the stand-out of the bunch. He plays the pompous, mustached snob, Foy, who steals the heart of Albert’s girlfriend, Louise. Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman are likable as the flawed, clueless couple who serve as Albert’s close friends, Edward and Ruth. Although their characters stay pretty comfortably within the realm of what you would expect from their respective actors, with Edward being the naïve nice guy, while Silverman’s Ruth is the seemingly-sweet-and-innocent, foul-mouthed hussy. Charlize Theron does a fine job as Albert’s mentor, Anna. She has a strong presence in the film and is fun to watch, but despite her best efforts, the emotional element she brings to the story ends up feeling forced and unconvincing. Though that’s no fault of her own. It’s just hard to imagine her, or anyone, falling head over heels so easily and suddenly for a guy like Albert. Then, of course, there’s Liam Neeson, who is effective in his performance as the intimidating villain, Clinch, but would have benefitted from more screen-time.
A Million Ways to Die in the West proficiently parodies the western film genre, capturing the right atmosphere for the setting and time period. Visually it’s a pleasant film to look at, with good camera-work, well-created sets, and lots of beautiful scenery. This makes it all the more disappointing then that the filmmakers decided to place a visual filter over the entirety of the film to give it a more old-fashioned look. As a result, there is a constant flickering throughout the whole movie, and while not quite seizure-inducing, it certainly is distracting. At times you kind of get used to it and forget about it, but it really stands out in scenes with heavy lighting and most of the movie takes place in broad daylight. On the audio side of things, the music is appropriately fitting, but little of it is particularly noteworthy. There is a great song about mustaches, accompanied with a well-orchestrated dance number led by Neil Patrick Harris in what is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the film. Additionally the film’s theme song is appropriately fun. The visual effects in the movie, although limited, are done quite well and nicely add to the film’s comedic effect. Although I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say the movie could have done just fine without all of the animated urinating sheep.
I think the film’s greatest flaw is the fact that it’s doing too much as it tries to incorporate all of the main stereotypes of the western genre. It has duels, bar brawls, jailbreaks, horse chases, and even capture by Indians thrown in for good measure. In trying to cover all of the bases, the movie ends up running too long and becomes a little boring and tired. Rather than building up to a climax, the film diverges with some unnecessary scenes, and then concludes with a lackluster ending. It would have been cool to see Clinch and his group of bandits lay siege to the main town, which could have given the filmmakers an opportunity to create a wide variety of deaths, and allow Albert to exercise his newly developed skills before setting up to an ultimate final showdown. Maybe that would be adding to the long list of clichés, but at least it would have given this slow-paced film some much needed adrenaline and would have made it more true to its misleading title. There are also several cameo appearances in the film, and while a couple of them are great conceptually, I don’t think any of them are quite as satisfying as they should be. They end up feeling out of place, like last-second additions that have no purpose other than to acknowledge other films. I can appreciate the attempt but the cameos aren’t particularly funny and they just seems to emphasize how much better those other films are.
Seth MacFarlane’s A Million Ways to Die in the West is good for a few laughs, but just like his character Albert’s long-winded ramblings, it feels like it goes on unreasonably long. It’s still an entertaining film regardless, and if you’re a fan of MacFarlane’s other work, you’ll most likely enjoy his parody of the Old West. The movie has a talented cast, some truly great scenes such as a bar brawl and a memorable dance, as well as plenty of good old-fashioned slapstick, and witty dialogue. If you can handle the occasional gross-out gag, you’ll probably have a good time. Just don’t expect to actually see the many ways people can die In the Old West. The movie doesn’t show many deaths at all, and all the best ones you likely already saw in the trailer.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 6.3.14.)
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
There's a lot of good, fun, over-the-top, explosive action! (2 more)
Age of Extinction features an incredible showcase of special effects.
Great acting from Tucci and Grammar, and a solid new star for the franchise with Mark Wahlberg.
With a 2 hour and 45 minute run-time, the movie goes on far too long and loses steam before the finale. (1 more)
The plot is completely overloaded with enough content to easily cover two films.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie that sticks to Michael Bay's usual mode of operation, but it's jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should.
After the events of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, referred to in the film as The Battle of Chicago, the surviving Autobots are being hunted to extinction. The United States government is bent on exterminating all Transformers, good and bad, believing them to be an unwelcome global threat. All the while, the hypocritical government has simultaneously partnered with a wealthy inventor who is trying to create his own superior, man-made variations of Transformers. Furthermore, they’re working with the help of the Transformer bounty hunter Lockdown to search out and annihilate Optimus Prime, the famed leader of the Autobots. Prime has been forced into hiding and has sent out a distress call encouraging his comrades to follow suit. When amateur inventor Cade Yeager inadvertently stumbles upon a disguised Optimus Prime, he helps to repair the damaged Transformer who must reunite with his remaining allies to fight for their right to live.
Before I dive into this review, I think I should inform you that I have not seen any of the previous Transformers movies. I should also note that I’m something of a Transformers hater. Despite pressure from family and friends who have praised the movie series, I have deliberately avoided every single one of the films. I never liked the cartoon as a kid, and while Transformers’ amalgamation of cars and robots may be a dream combination for most guys, I have very little interest in either. However, as a critic, I cannot let my own biases get in the way of giving fair judgment. After having watched Transformers: Age of Extinction, I can thankfully report that the film actually wasn’t half bad. While it’s not going to make a Transformers fan out of me, it was an entertaining, albeit overly-long, movie-going experience.
Age of Extinction is an action-packed ride, filled with the kind of over-the-top entertainment you would expect from a Michael Bay film. While Bay has developed something of a bad rap, there’s no denying his knack for fun and ridiculous action sequences. He’s a man who spares no expense when it comes to explosions and special effects, and this is where Bay is at his best. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with his results as he’s surely one of the most successful directors of all time. However, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, the high-speed action of Age of Extinction is exhausting and becomes tiresome long before the finale. Even when Bay slows things down, he keeps the camera overly busy with particle effects and constant movement. While all of that looks great in IMAX 3D, it feels like an endless visual barrage that is frankly a lot to take in. How many lens flares must a man endure in one movie? I understand the desire to make every shot exciting and visually striking, but I think Bay is trying to tackle too much on camera.
Similarly, Age of Extinction is trying to squeeze too much into its plot, which could almost be broken up into two entirely separate movies. We have the hunt for Optimus Prime and the Transformers by Lockdown and the CIA; Cade Yeager’s discovery of Prime and their ensuing alliance; the love story between Cade’s daughter and her boyfriend; the emergence of the Dinobots; as well as the man-made construction of new Transformers. The result is a fast-paced action movie that is convoluted and far too long. That’s not to say that what is there is bad, though. Awful love story aside, all of the other components of the story are solid and even pretty interesting. Kelsey Grammer puts in a good performance as the head of the CIA who is responsible for the extermination of the Transformers. Similarly, Stanley Tucci is great as Joshua Joyce, the brilliant inventor who is recreating human-controlled Transformers for military use. Yet I can’t help but think that Joyce’s plot would have been perhaps been better to save for a sequel. Sure, it offers a nice parallel between the two inventors and it also creates an opportunity for them to introduce some all-new Transformers, but aren’t the Dinobots enough? There’s so much going on in the film that the eagerly-anticipated Dinobots aren’t given much screen time at all. There is just an unreasonable amount of narratives going on in this movie, to the point where it’s hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat during the climactic showdown, you’re probably going to be looking at your watch and wondering how much longer this movie can possibly go on.
While I’m no expert on Transformers, I think the film does an admirable job in bringing the robotic characters to life. Their appearance and animation are both impressive, and they’re typically a pretty fun bunch. I have to admit, though, that I was a bit jarred by the angry and violent demeanor of Optimus Prime. I thought he was supposed to be the good guy everyone looked up to? In Age of Extinction, he clearly has some anger management issues. While he might be the most skilled warrior out there, he sure doesn’t seem like much of a role model. Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, has one again returned to voice the character. John Goodman gives a stand-out voice performance as Hound, in a role he seemed to have a lot of fun with, and Ken Watanabe voices the Samurai-like Transformer known as Drift. All in all, there are a lot of Transformers in the movie, but there is hardly ample time to get to know most of them. I imagine many of them have been introduced in previous films, but for a newcomer like myself, I had a hard time distinguishing between quite a few of them. Then there are the Dinobots, which look awesome, but we’re not given a chance to know much of anything about them. It’s a shame that they’re reduced to feeling like unnecessary bookends to an already overly-crammed movie.
On the human side of things, Mark Wahlberg is enjoyable as the struggling inventor who scavengers through whatever he can to try to create a breakthrough invention. He brings a charming and heroic presence to his role, making him a character we can identify with and root for as he tries to assist the highly-targeted Transformers. T.J. Miller’s Lucas makes for a mildly humorous companion to Cade, although much of the film’s attempts at comedy feel forced and aren’t very funny. Then there’s Nicola Peltz as the skimpily-dressed, rebellious but brainy and innocent, party girl daughter Tessa. She fits right into Bay’s stereotypical sexist female lead who serves as little more than a damsel in distress and eye candy. Still, I don’t know who is worse; Tessa, or her rally car racing boyfriend Shane, played by Jack Reynor. I felt just as frustrated by them as Wahlberg does playing Tessa’s disgruntled and disapproving father. These two lovebirds are an annoying and unwanted addition that only further drag out the plot. While it was at first vaguely amusing to watch Cade freak out as the over-protective father, that shtick ended up getting old real quick. While Wahlberg makes a good new face for the franchise, I hope to God that he comes alone for the next one.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie. Director Michael Bay sticks to his usual mode of operation with ridiculous action sequences, top of the line special effects, and a whole lot of explosions. If you’re looking for a movie with more flash than substance, Age of Extinction should be right up your alley. It’s jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should, but if offers plenty of dumb, fun entertainment. Transformers fans should be pleased, although the series still has yet to make a fan out of me.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.22.14.)
Before I dive into this review, I think I should inform you that I have not seen any of the previous Transformers movies. I should also note that I’m something of a Transformers hater. Despite pressure from family and friends who have praised the movie series, I have deliberately avoided every single one of the films. I never liked the cartoon as a kid, and while Transformers’ amalgamation of cars and robots may be a dream combination for most guys, I have very little interest in either. However, as a critic, I cannot let my own biases get in the way of giving fair judgment. After having watched Transformers: Age of Extinction, I can thankfully report that the film actually wasn’t half bad. While it’s not going to make a Transformers fan out of me, it was an entertaining, albeit overly-long, movie-going experience.
Age of Extinction is an action-packed ride, filled with the kind of over-the-top entertainment you would expect from a Michael Bay film. While Bay has developed something of a bad rap, there’s no denying his knack for fun and ridiculous action sequences. He’s a man who spares no expense when it comes to explosions and special effects, and this is where Bay is at his best. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with his results as he’s surely one of the most successful directors of all time. However, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, the high-speed action of Age of Extinction is exhausting and becomes tiresome long before the finale. Even when Bay slows things down, he keeps the camera overly busy with particle effects and constant movement. While all of that looks great in IMAX 3D, it feels like an endless visual barrage that is frankly a lot to take in. How many lens flares must a man endure in one movie? I understand the desire to make every shot exciting and visually striking, but I think Bay is trying to tackle too much on camera.
Similarly, Age of Extinction is trying to squeeze too much into its plot, which could almost be broken up into two entirely separate movies. We have the hunt for Optimus Prime and the Transformers by Lockdown and the CIA; Cade Yeager’s discovery of Prime and their ensuing alliance; the love story between Cade’s daughter and her boyfriend; the emergence of the Dinobots; as well as the man-made construction of new Transformers. The result is a fast-paced action movie that is convoluted and far too long. That’s not to say that what is there is bad, though. Awful love story aside, all of the other components of the story are solid and even pretty interesting. Kelsey Grammer puts in a good performance as the head of the CIA who is responsible for the extermination of the Transformers. Similarly, Stanley Tucci is great as Joshua Joyce, the brilliant inventor who is recreating human-controlled Transformers for military use. Yet I can’t help but think that Joyce’s plot would have been perhaps been better to save for a sequel. Sure, it offers a nice parallel between the two inventors and it also creates an opportunity for them to introduce some all-new Transformers, but aren’t the Dinobots enough? There’s so much going on in the film that the eagerly-anticipated Dinobots aren’t given much screen time at all. There is just an unreasonable amount of narratives going on in this movie, to the point where it’s hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat during the climactic showdown, you’re probably going to be looking at your watch and wondering how much longer this movie can possibly go on.
While I’m no expert on Transformers, I think the film does an admirable job in bringing the robotic characters to life. Their appearance and animation are both impressive, and they’re typically a pretty fun bunch. I have to admit, though, that I was a bit jarred by the angry and violent demeanor of Optimus Prime. I thought he was supposed to be the good guy everyone looked up to? In Age of Extinction, he clearly has some anger management issues. While he might be the most skilled warrior out there, he sure doesn’t seem like much of a role model. Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, has one again returned to voice the character. John Goodman gives a stand-out voice performance as Hound, in a role he seemed to have a lot of fun with, and Ken Watanabe voices the Samurai-like Transformer known as Drift. All in all, there are a lot of Transformers in the movie, but there is hardly ample time to get to know most of them. I imagine many of them have been introduced in previous films, but for a newcomer like myself, I had a hard time distinguishing between quite a few of them. Then there are the Dinobots, which look awesome, but we’re not given a chance to know much of anything about them. It’s a shame that they’re reduced to feeling like unnecessary bookends to an already overly-crammed movie.
On the human side of things, Mark Wahlberg is enjoyable as the struggling inventor who scavengers through whatever he can to try to create a breakthrough invention. He brings a charming and heroic presence to his role, making him a character we can identify with and root for as he tries to assist the highly-targeted Transformers. T.J. Miller’s Lucas makes for a mildly humorous companion to Cade, although much of the film’s attempts at comedy feel forced and aren’t very funny. Then there’s Nicola Peltz as the skimpily-dressed, rebellious but brainy and innocent, party girl daughter Tessa. She fits right into Bay’s stereotypical sexist female lead who serves as little more than a damsel in distress and eye candy. Still, I don’t know who is worse; Tessa, or her rally car racing boyfriend Shane, played by Jack Reynor. I felt just as frustrated by them as Wahlberg does playing Tessa’s disgruntled and disapproving father. These two lovebirds are an annoying and unwanted addition that only further drag out the plot. While it was at first vaguely amusing to watch Cade freak out as the over-protective father, that shtick ended up getting old real quick. While Wahlberg makes a good new face for the franchise, I hope to God that he comes alone for the next one.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie. Director Michael Bay sticks to his usual mode of operation with ridiculous action sequences, top of the line special effects, and a whole lot of explosions. If you’re looking for a movie with more flash than substance, Age of Extinction should be right up your alley. It’s jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should, but if offers plenty of dumb, fun entertainment. Transformers fans should be pleased, although the series still has yet to make a fan out of me.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.22.14.)