Search
Search results
Kyera (8 KP) rated Eliza and Her Monsters in Books
Jan 31, 2018
I always read before I go to bed, so last night I decided to pick up Eliza and Her Monsters by Francesca Zappia. I fell in love and before I knew it, I was 50% done but I thought I could read for another 15 or so minutes – that turned into me finishing the book at midnight. I don’t regret a thing. This is a mental health book that deals with trauma, anxiety, and depression, so I would just like to give all readers a trigger warning. I personally felt that it was beautifully written, but not everyone will feel the same way so I suggest a level of caution if you think you may be triggered by these things. I wouldn’t want anyone to feel harmed by this book or any book.
Just a warning, I do talk about the relationships in this book as well as some plot points. I don’t discuss anything that wasn’t mentioned in the synopsis on the book or Goodreads, but if you haven’t read those then this is your spoiler warning.
Our main character is Eliza, the anonymous creator of the famous webcomic Monsterous Seas. She has always been more comfortable online than dealing with the real world, or real people. All of her friends are online. She has always kept her identity a secret and as the popularity of her work has grown, the fervor to learn her identity has as well.
Eliza has always been content to spend her days in school drawing and talking to no one – that is until there is a new guy in school, Wallace. Against all odds, he is a fan of Monsterous Seas and actually writes fan fiction about it. It doesn’t take long before they become friends and Wallace gets Eliza to come a little more out of her shell. Their friendship was so precious and I loved watching them bond over a story that was so important to each of their lives.
The romance aspect of the book also made me super happy – I legitimately was smiling every time they were super cute together. Even though they each had their issues to deal with, they didn’t push each other past their respective lines of security. They were supportive of one another and I think that Wallace was the perfect foil for Eliza. Yes, they had their troubles but at the end of the day, they were there for one another.
The family dynamic was completely relatable if frustrating at times. Eliza’s parents don’t truly understand what her webcomic is or how famous it is, which causes a lot of friction within the family. Her parents want to understand her more, but Eliza is very closed and protective of herself. While they may not understand the importance of it even if she took the time to explain it and what it means to the world, she doesn’t even give them the chance. Eliza is defensive and her lack of communication is what ultimately leads to the worst crisis she experiences, despite her parent's well-meaning intentions.
The most heart-warming part of the novel was the scene in which one of her brothers stood up for her and supported Eliza. It was such a precious moment and it was nice to see a positive familial connection being formed. Eliza learns throughout the novel that she never gave her family a chance and that maybe she doesn’t really know them. The growth that she experiences over the course of the novel was wonderful to see and gives you hope that (although she’s fictional) perhaps things will change for the better with her family and her life.
As a person who feels infinitely more comfortable talking to someone over the internet than in person, there were many times that I related to Eliza. I completely understand the anxiety of talking to another person, even one-on-one. I cannot imagine the stress and havoc the reveal of your identity to millions of people would have on your psyche and body. My heart broke when we found out her identity was exposed because Francesca wrote a character so real that we could feel her horror and destruction.
There was also some diversity in this book, although it wasn’t as explored as it could have been. Wallace’s family is a unique situation and I would have loved to learn more about them, but understand that it would have slowed down the pacing of the novel. I can’t say more because I don’t want this to have actual spoilers, so just go read the book. While it is not explicitly mentioned in the book, the author wrote in a tweet that she wished her portrayal of ace/demi sexuality was truly addressed. I think that would have brought a wonderful level of diversity that we don’t normally see in books and could use more of.
If it wasn’t clear from my ‘I read it in one sitting into the wee hours of the night’ tale, I absolutely loved this book. It was very relatable and as an introverted fangirl myself, I personally felt represented by this book. Even though I didn’t know about it before it was published, I definitely expect it to make my best of 2017 list. It is a contemporary that, in my opinion, honestly and respectfully tackles mental illness, family relationships and is so wonderfully written that I hope you fall in love with it as well.
Just a warning, I do talk about the relationships in this book as well as some plot points. I don’t discuss anything that wasn’t mentioned in the synopsis on the book or Goodreads, but if you haven’t read those then this is your spoiler warning.
Our main character is Eliza, the anonymous creator of the famous webcomic Monsterous Seas. She has always been more comfortable online than dealing with the real world, or real people. All of her friends are online. She has always kept her identity a secret and as the popularity of her work has grown, the fervor to learn her identity has as well.
Eliza has always been content to spend her days in school drawing and talking to no one – that is until there is a new guy in school, Wallace. Against all odds, he is a fan of Monsterous Seas and actually writes fan fiction about it. It doesn’t take long before they become friends and Wallace gets Eliza to come a little more out of her shell. Their friendship was so precious and I loved watching them bond over a story that was so important to each of their lives.
The romance aspect of the book also made me super happy – I legitimately was smiling every time they were super cute together. Even though they each had their issues to deal with, they didn’t push each other past their respective lines of security. They were supportive of one another and I think that Wallace was the perfect foil for Eliza. Yes, they had their troubles but at the end of the day, they were there for one another.
The family dynamic was completely relatable if frustrating at times. Eliza’s parents don’t truly understand what her webcomic is or how famous it is, which causes a lot of friction within the family. Her parents want to understand her more, but Eliza is very closed and protective of herself. While they may not understand the importance of it even if she took the time to explain it and what it means to the world, she doesn’t even give them the chance. Eliza is defensive and her lack of communication is what ultimately leads to the worst crisis she experiences, despite her parent's well-meaning intentions.
The most heart-warming part of the novel was the scene in which one of her brothers stood up for her and supported Eliza. It was such a precious moment and it was nice to see a positive familial connection being formed. Eliza learns throughout the novel that she never gave her family a chance and that maybe she doesn’t really know them. The growth that she experiences over the course of the novel was wonderful to see and gives you hope that (although she’s fictional) perhaps things will change for the better with her family and her life.
As a person who feels infinitely more comfortable talking to someone over the internet than in person, there were many times that I related to Eliza. I completely understand the anxiety of talking to another person, even one-on-one. I cannot imagine the stress and havoc the reveal of your identity to millions of people would have on your psyche and body. My heart broke when we found out her identity was exposed because Francesca wrote a character so real that we could feel her horror and destruction.
There was also some diversity in this book, although it wasn’t as explored as it could have been. Wallace’s family is a unique situation and I would have loved to learn more about them, but understand that it would have slowed down the pacing of the novel. I can’t say more because I don’t want this to have actual spoilers, so just go read the book. While it is not explicitly mentioned in the book, the author wrote in a tweet that she wished her portrayal of ace/demi sexuality was truly addressed. I think that would have brought a wonderful level of diversity that we don’t normally see in books and could use more of.
If it wasn’t clear from my ‘I read it in one sitting into the wee hours of the night’ tale, I absolutely loved this book. It was very relatable and as an introverted fangirl myself, I personally felt represented by this book. Even though I didn’t know about it before it was published, I definitely expect it to make my best of 2017 list. It is a contemporary that, in my opinion, honestly and respectfully tackles mental illness, family relationships and is so wonderfully written that I hope you fall in love with it as well.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated In The Shadow of Blackbirds in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I'm a sucker for ghost stories, so when I heard about this book through numerous blogs, I knew it was a book that I would have to read. Luckily, I wasn't disappointed.
Mary Shelley Black is a 16 year old girl who is sent to live in California with her aunt after her father gets arrested for helping men avoid the draft in 1918. She meets up with her childhood friend, and they fall in love with each other. Unfortunately, when they realize they're in love with each other, it's too late. He is being shipped off to war the next day. When she receives word that Stephen, her childhood friend and sweetheart, has died in battle, Mary Shelley is devasted. She's never believed in ghosts before, but when Stephen's ghost comes to here asking for help, she'll do whatever it takes to help him.
I found the title of this book to be very interesting. In fact, before I read the book, I was quite confused about how that title would fit in with a ghost story. After reading the book, I understood what it was all about.
The cover is rather interesting as well. I like the way there's pretty Mary Shelley Black sitting on a chair with what looks like a spirit beside her. The cover is what caught my attention in the first place. When I saw it, I knew I had to read it.
The world building in this book is quite good and believable. It's very obvious that Miss Winters has done her homework about life back in 1918. I'm not a history buff, but from what I was reading, everything seemed to be historically accurate. I even had to look up stuff myself that I never knew about such as people using onions to ward off the flu!! Personally, I think I would've been a bit more scared when it came to Stephen's ghostly visits to Mary Shelley though, but this may just be a me thing.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, and I was feeling disappointed as I had heard great things about this book. However, once I got about 100 pages in, the pacing picked right up, and I was hooked. I only put this book down because real life interfered with my reading. I could definitely tell why people were loving In the Shadow of Blackbirds!
The plot was fantastic and very interesting. I had never read a book dealing with the whole spiritualist movement of the early 20th century. I loved how the plot incorporated everything about that period of time such as the war and the flu. The spiritualism in the book portrayed how gullible and desperate people were back then with all their loved ones dying. I loved the fiction aspect of a girl whose first love dies despite all these other things going on. I loved how he returned as a ghost and the major twist in the story.
The characters were definitely thought out and well written. I loved how Mary Shelley was so passionate when it came to what she loved. I loved her vulnerability at times but how strong she was. I just loved how great of a character Mary Shelley was. I did find Stephen to be a bit annoying as a ghost though. I just thought he was too whiney, and at times, I wanted to exorcise him! I know it sounds mean, but boy, he was just so annoying! I understand that he was suffering but still. I just felt that he put a lot of pressure on Mary Shelley to save him considering how much he loved her! Julius made a great meanie! I hated him, and there were so many times I wish I could've yelled at him! He wasn't a poorly written character; he was quite the opposite actually! I did love Mary Shelley's Aunt Eva too. She came across a lot older than her 26 years, but I think I would've as well if I'd been through what she had. I loved the way she was willing to take Mary Shelley in, and I loved how she always made a fuss over her. Eva definitely had a big heart.
I found the dialogue to be most fascinating! I enjoyed reading about each character as well as reading about history. If only learning about history were this fun in school. I think I would've paid more attention! I loved reading about how Mary Shelley felt about everything. I loved the way people spoke back then as well. As for language, there are a few swear words, but nothing too major.
Overall, In the Shadow of Blackbirds by Cat Winters was a super interesting read!! The world building, plot and characters were all written fantastically, and I never even knew I was getting a history lesson in the process.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are after an interesting read. I think mostly everyone would enjoy it.
In the Shadow of Blackbirds gets a 4.25 out of 5 from me.
I'm a sucker for ghost stories, so when I heard about this book through numerous blogs, I knew it was a book that I would have to read. Luckily, I wasn't disappointed.
Mary Shelley Black is a 16 year old girl who is sent to live in California with her aunt after her father gets arrested for helping men avoid the draft in 1918. She meets up with her childhood friend, and they fall in love with each other. Unfortunately, when they realize they're in love with each other, it's too late. He is being shipped off to war the next day. When she receives word that Stephen, her childhood friend and sweetheart, has died in battle, Mary Shelley is devasted. She's never believed in ghosts before, but when Stephen's ghost comes to here asking for help, she'll do whatever it takes to help him.
I found the title of this book to be very interesting. In fact, before I read the book, I was quite confused about how that title would fit in with a ghost story. After reading the book, I understood what it was all about.
The cover is rather interesting as well. I like the way there's pretty Mary Shelley Black sitting on a chair with what looks like a spirit beside her. The cover is what caught my attention in the first place. When I saw it, I knew I had to read it.
The world building in this book is quite good and believable. It's very obvious that Miss Winters has done her homework about life back in 1918. I'm not a history buff, but from what I was reading, everything seemed to be historically accurate. I even had to look up stuff myself that I never knew about such as people using onions to ward off the flu!! Personally, I think I would've been a bit more scared when it came to Stephen's ghostly visits to Mary Shelley though, but this may just be a me thing.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, and I was feeling disappointed as I had heard great things about this book. However, once I got about 100 pages in, the pacing picked right up, and I was hooked. I only put this book down because real life interfered with my reading. I could definitely tell why people were loving In the Shadow of Blackbirds!
The plot was fantastic and very interesting. I had never read a book dealing with the whole spiritualist movement of the early 20th century. I loved how the plot incorporated everything about that period of time such as the war and the flu. The spiritualism in the book portrayed how gullible and desperate people were back then with all their loved ones dying. I loved the fiction aspect of a girl whose first love dies despite all these other things going on. I loved how he returned as a ghost and the major twist in the story.
The characters were definitely thought out and well written. I loved how Mary Shelley was so passionate when it came to what she loved. I loved her vulnerability at times but how strong she was. I just loved how great of a character Mary Shelley was. I did find Stephen to be a bit annoying as a ghost though. I just thought he was too whiney, and at times, I wanted to exorcise him! I know it sounds mean, but boy, he was just so annoying! I understand that he was suffering but still. I just felt that he put a lot of pressure on Mary Shelley to save him considering how much he loved her! Julius made a great meanie! I hated him, and there were so many times I wish I could've yelled at him! He wasn't a poorly written character; he was quite the opposite actually! I did love Mary Shelley's Aunt Eva too. She came across a lot older than her 26 years, but I think I would've as well if I'd been through what she had. I loved the way she was willing to take Mary Shelley in, and I loved how she always made a fuss over her. Eva definitely had a big heart.
I found the dialogue to be most fascinating! I enjoyed reading about each character as well as reading about history. If only learning about history were this fun in school. I think I would've paid more attention! I loved reading about how Mary Shelley felt about everything. I loved the way people spoke back then as well. As for language, there are a few swear words, but nothing too major.
Overall, In the Shadow of Blackbirds by Cat Winters was a super interesting read!! The world building, plot and characters were all written fantastically, and I never even knew I was getting a history lesson in the process.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are after an interesting read. I think mostly everyone would enjoy it.
In the Shadow of Blackbirds gets a 4.25 out of 5 from me.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019 (Updated Jun 18, 2019)
Steven Spielberg's (Mostly) Triumphant Return to Sci-Fi
If we’re being honest here, writer to reader, I never got around to reading Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One novel despite the fact that it’s sitting on a bookshelf less than ten feet from me as I type this. It turned out not to matter that much since Steven Spielberg took liberties with the source material. In the film, a virtual video game reality known as the OASIS is where everyone spends their time in the year 2045. Our main character Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) lives in, “The Stacks,” which is basically just a bunch of mobile homes stacked on top of each other. The coin collected in the OASIS as well as purchases within the game have evolved into an individual's life savings in the real world. Everyone wants to escape their crappy life and the OASIS is now all that matters.
James Halliday (Mark Rylance), creator of the OASIS, dies suddenly but he leaves behind a treasure hunt for three keys hidden within the depths of the OASIS with the main prize being an Easter egg that would allow the winner to have complete control over the entirety of the OASIS. Wade (as his avatar Parzival) intends to win Halliday’s challenge to get out of The Stacks and adopts the title of Gunter (egg hunter) along with his friends Aech (Lena Waithe), Art3mis (Olivia Cooke), and brothers Daito (Win Morisaki) and Sho (Philip Zhao) who become known together as the, “HIgh Five,” but a video game conglomerate known as Innovative Online Industries or IOI spends all of their time and money attempting to find the secrets Halliday has hidden. IOI consists of an army known as the Sixers, which are players who owe large debts to the OASIS. CEO of IOI Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) intends to take the free-to-use OASIS and transform it into a monetized monopoly.
The storyline of Spielberg’s Ready Player One reminds me of the 19th episode of season two of Regular Show entitled, “High Score.” In that episode, Mordecai and Rigby attempt to beat the world record on a video game with record holder Garrett Bobby Ferguson (GBF or Giant Bearded Face). Ready Player One kind of expands on that concept and throws in a ton of nostalgic movie references while being set in the future. The weird thing is that those recycled moments that call back to the movies of yesteryear are the highlights of Ready Player One while the rest of the film suffers from Spielberg’s usual shortcomings.
I haven’t enjoyed a Steven Spielberg film since 2011’s The Adventures of Tintin. That combined with the trailer coming off as less than impressive and poster art from the marketing campaign (the main poster illustrated by Drew Struzan is amazing) that seemed to rely on generic face swapping via Photoshop on well-known movie posters had me really underwhelmed for the film overall. The film itself also suffers from corny dialogue, tender and romantic moments feeling force fed and overwhelming, and head-scratching sequences that leave you wondering why they needed to be included in the first place (the whole dance club/second challenge scene, for starters).
However, what the science fiction adventure gets right is the reason why you go to the movies. Spielberg along with cinematographer and frequent collaborator Janusz Kaminski know how to smoothly and effectively capture dynamic shots with a camera. When we first see Wade in The Stacks, he slides down a series of ropes and poles passing by and through various homes and junkyard cars that no longer run all while showcasing how plugged into a false reality civilization has become. The first race sequence of the film is also extraordinary with its fast pace and hectic action that is fairly easy to digest due to the sleek camera work. There’s a fairly lengthy segment devoted to a beloved horror film that is legitimately fantastic since it is not only a throwback to that original film, but it’s also injected with new thrilling terrors that you won’t see coming. Most battle sequences in the film with large ensembles are impressive for all of the obvious reasons; solid special effects, mass number of characters on the screen, a delicious dose of destruction, and most of all a countless series of references to movies, video games, and cartoons that you probably love. Witnessing what characters will pop up, when, and how they’ll be utilized is half of what makes Ready Player One so fun; it’s like a big budget version of South Park’s Imaginationland.
You either love or hate what Steven Spielberg has accomplished as a filmmaker, but it’s difficult not to admit that Ready Player One is a hell of a lot of fun even if you have some issues with the film. Spielberg has this cliche quality to him that is completely overbearing at times and he isn’t able to escape that aspect of his filmmaking with Ready Player One, but there’s enough of an entertaining and nostalgic value combined with not knowing who’s going to pop up next and some incredible cinematography highlighted by fluid yet flashy special effects resulting in a film that will be exciting and fun for anyone who was ever or still is a rabid gamer or movie lover. Spielberg has crafted a surefire crowd-pleaser that is basically a two and a half hour sentimental plunge directly into your childhood.
James Halliday (Mark Rylance), creator of the OASIS, dies suddenly but he leaves behind a treasure hunt for three keys hidden within the depths of the OASIS with the main prize being an Easter egg that would allow the winner to have complete control over the entirety of the OASIS. Wade (as his avatar Parzival) intends to win Halliday’s challenge to get out of The Stacks and adopts the title of Gunter (egg hunter) along with his friends Aech (Lena Waithe), Art3mis (Olivia Cooke), and brothers Daito (Win Morisaki) and Sho (Philip Zhao) who become known together as the, “HIgh Five,” but a video game conglomerate known as Innovative Online Industries or IOI spends all of their time and money attempting to find the secrets Halliday has hidden. IOI consists of an army known as the Sixers, which are players who owe large debts to the OASIS. CEO of IOI Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) intends to take the free-to-use OASIS and transform it into a monetized monopoly.
The storyline of Spielberg’s Ready Player One reminds me of the 19th episode of season two of Regular Show entitled, “High Score.” In that episode, Mordecai and Rigby attempt to beat the world record on a video game with record holder Garrett Bobby Ferguson (GBF or Giant Bearded Face). Ready Player One kind of expands on that concept and throws in a ton of nostalgic movie references while being set in the future. The weird thing is that those recycled moments that call back to the movies of yesteryear are the highlights of Ready Player One while the rest of the film suffers from Spielberg’s usual shortcomings.
I haven’t enjoyed a Steven Spielberg film since 2011’s The Adventures of Tintin. That combined with the trailer coming off as less than impressive and poster art from the marketing campaign (the main poster illustrated by Drew Struzan is amazing) that seemed to rely on generic face swapping via Photoshop on well-known movie posters had me really underwhelmed for the film overall. The film itself also suffers from corny dialogue, tender and romantic moments feeling force fed and overwhelming, and head-scratching sequences that leave you wondering why they needed to be included in the first place (the whole dance club/second challenge scene, for starters).
However, what the science fiction adventure gets right is the reason why you go to the movies. Spielberg along with cinematographer and frequent collaborator Janusz Kaminski know how to smoothly and effectively capture dynamic shots with a camera. When we first see Wade in The Stacks, he slides down a series of ropes and poles passing by and through various homes and junkyard cars that no longer run all while showcasing how plugged into a false reality civilization has become. The first race sequence of the film is also extraordinary with its fast pace and hectic action that is fairly easy to digest due to the sleek camera work. There’s a fairly lengthy segment devoted to a beloved horror film that is legitimately fantastic since it is not only a throwback to that original film, but it’s also injected with new thrilling terrors that you won’t see coming. Most battle sequences in the film with large ensembles are impressive for all of the obvious reasons; solid special effects, mass number of characters on the screen, a delicious dose of destruction, and most of all a countless series of references to movies, video games, and cartoons that you probably love. Witnessing what characters will pop up, when, and how they’ll be utilized is half of what makes Ready Player One so fun; it’s like a big budget version of South Park’s Imaginationland.
You either love or hate what Steven Spielberg has accomplished as a filmmaker, but it’s difficult not to admit that Ready Player One is a hell of a lot of fun even if you have some issues with the film. Spielberg has this cliche quality to him that is completely overbearing at times and he isn’t able to escape that aspect of his filmmaking with Ready Player One, but there’s enough of an entertaining and nostalgic value combined with not knowing who’s going to pop up next and some incredible cinematography highlighted by fluid yet flashy special effects resulting in a film that will be exciting and fun for anyone who was ever or still is a rabid gamer or movie lover. Spielberg has crafted a surefire crowd-pleaser that is basically a two and a half hour sentimental plunge directly into your childhood.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Tusk (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
To legions of his many fans, writer, director, producer, and podcaster Kevin Smith is a man fanboys find easy to root for. His films have become pop-culture gold to comic book, science fiction, and general geekdom fans the world over. Smith has built a career on independent films with characters that are as real as they are raw and raunchy. The crude nature of his jokes often put him in a “love them or hate them” category for many critics as it is definitely not a style that is for the masses. That being said, the films are witty, honest, and most times relatable, no matter how bad the situations and the characters become. Recently, Smith took a detour to the darker side with his film “Red State” that looked at a group of kids who became the victims of a fanatical cult leader and his followers.
While Smith was reportedly working to get funding for “Clerks 3”, an idea was presented to him during his Smodcast about a guy in rural Canada who is offering free room and board to anybody who would live with him on the condition that they wear a walrus costume from time to time. Buoyed by his followers on Twitter, Smith decided to make a horror film based on the situation even after learning that the incident in question was the result of a prank by a comedian.
In his new film Tusk, we are introduced to a successful podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long), who along with his costar Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), run a show called the Not See Party, whose name leads to several double takes and comical and uncomfortable situations down the line. Wallace’s girlfriend Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) wishes to accompany Wallace to his trip up to Canada in order to interview someone for a show.
Since Teddy is not a flyer, Wallace travels to locations to interview people and then in turn tells the stories to Teddy so the two can comment about them on air. Ally longs for the Wallace of old who was a struggling comedian as she believes that the successful Wallace is not that fun to be around as he no longer makes her a priority in life. Wallace admits as much when he discloses a series of infidelities to Teddy and dismisses them as nothing more than clearing of the head while traveling or before doing a live show for an audience.
Upon arriving in Manitoba, Wallace learns that his intended interview has befallen tragedy and faced without a topic for his next show, Wallace is intrigued by a flyer from a man offering room and board as well as plenty of stories.
Wallace makes contact with the individual and travels two hours into rural Manitoba at night to meet the man at his expansive estate. Upon meeting Howard Howe (Michael Parks), Wallace is captivated by the elderly wheelchair-bound gentleman and his tales of life at sea including meeting Ernest Hemingway during the war. As Wallace sat spellbound by the tales Howard is telling him, he soon falls unconscious as a result of being drugged by his host. Things take a very dark turn the following morning when Howard learns that he has lost a leg of which Howard proclaims was the tragic result of a spider bite. Things become a living nightmare as Wallace quickly learns just how devious and diabolical Michael’s plans are for him and trapped in a remote area his humanity and faith are slowly stripped away by the situation he finds himself in.
Teddy and Ally travel to Manitoba due to a frantic call Wallace makes and not finding much assistance from the local authorities, turn to quirky and eccentric former homicide detective Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp), who fears that Wallace has become the victim of an elusive killer whom LaPointe has been trying to find for years.
What follows is a dark, disturbing, and utterly captivating thriller in a race against time with the very essence and humanity of Wallace hanging in the balance.
While Smith inserts his trademark humor into the film, this is very much a psychological thriller and not a comedy. Depp does a fantastic job and is almost unrecognizable in his role as a homicide detective who is scheduled to appear in a subsequent film currently shooting. While it seemed a bit of a stretch that Ally would want be involved with Wallace, there was nonetheless a good bit of chemistry between them even though the majority of their scenes are shown via flashback.
Long and Parks propel the story as it is pretty much about the dramatic struggle between the two of them. Parks is captivating and creepy while the brash Wallace gets a lesson in humanity and what truly matters in life. While some will no doubt find the subject matter highly disturbing and may be quick to dismiss the film, this is one of the more clever and enjoyable thrillers in recent years and proves that Smith is a filmmaker capable of doing things other than his trademark comedies and should be encouraged to continue to broaden his horizons.
As it stands the film should delight fans of Smith but also allows him to expand his audience into new areas as this truly is one of the more memorable and entertaining films of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/09/19/tusk/
While Smith was reportedly working to get funding for “Clerks 3”, an idea was presented to him during his Smodcast about a guy in rural Canada who is offering free room and board to anybody who would live with him on the condition that they wear a walrus costume from time to time. Buoyed by his followers on Twitter, Smith decided to make a horror film based on the situation even after learning that the incident in question was the result of a prank by a comedian.
In his new film Tusk, we are introduced to a successful podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long), who along with his costar Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), run a show called the Not See Party, whose name leads to several double takes and comical and uncomfortable situations down the line. Wallace’s girlfriend Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) wishes to accompany Wallace to his trip up to Canada in order to interview someone for a show.
Since Teddy is not a flyer, Wallace travels to locations to interview people and then in turn tells the stories to Teddy so the two can comment about them on air. Ally longs for the Wallace of old who was a struggling comedian as she believes that the successful Wallace is not that fun to be around as he no longer makes her a priority in life. Wallace admits as much when he discloses a series of infidelities to Teddy and dismisses them as nothing more than clearing of the head while traveling or before doing a live show for an audience.
Upon arriving in Manitoba, Wallace learns that his intended interview has befallen tragedy and faced without a topic for his next show, Wallace is intrigued by a flyer from a man offering room and board as well as plenty of stories.
Wallace makes contact with the individual and travels two hours into rural Manitoba at night to meet the man at his expansive estate. Upon meeting Howard Howe (Michael Parks), Wallace is captivated by the elderly wheelchair-bound gentleman and his tales of life at sea including meeting Ernest Hemingway during the war. As Wallace sat spellbound by the tales Howard is telling him, he soon falls unconscious as a result of being drugged by his host. Things take a very dark turn the following morning when Howard learns that he has lost a leg of which Howard proclaims was the tragic result of a spider bite. Things become a living nightmare as Wallace quickly learns just how devious and diabolical Michael’s plans are for him and trapped in a remote area his humanity and faith are slowly stripped away by the situation he finds himself in.
Teddy and Ally travel to Manitoba due to a frantic call Wallace makes and not finding much assistance from the local authorities, turn to quirky and eccentric former homicide detective Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp), who fears that Wallace has become the victim of an elusive killer whom LaPointe has been trying to find for years.
What follows is a dark, disturbing, and utterly captivating thriller in a race against time with the very essence and humanity of Wallace hanging in the balance.
While Smith inserts his trademark humor into the film, this is very much a psychological thriller and not a comedy. Depp does a fantastic job and is almost unrecognizable in his role as a homicide detective who is scheduled to appear in a subsequent film currently shooting. While it seemed a bit of a stretch that Ally would want be involved with Wallace, there was nonetheless a good bit of chemistry between them even though the majority of their scenes are shown via flashback.
Long and Parks propel the story as it is pretty much about the dramatic struggle between the two of them. Parks is captivating and creepy while the brash Wallace gets a lesson in humanity and what truly matters in life. While some will no doubt find the subject matter highly disturbing and may be quick to dismiss the film, this is one of the more clever and enjoyable thrillers in recent years and proves that Smith is a filmmaker capable of doing things other than his trademark comedies and should be encouraged to continue to broaden his horizons.
As it stands the film should delight fans of Smith but also allows him to expand his audience into new areas as this truly is one of the more memorable and entertaining films of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/09/19/tusk/
Amazing historical retelling!
You can also find this review on my blog: bookingwayreads.wordpress.com
4.5 stars
TRIGGER WARNINGS: murder, hostage situation, violence, alcoholism, loss of a loved one, starvation, terminal illness, executions, gunshots, trauma
“The bond of our hearts spans miles, memory, and time.”
Main Characters:
Anastasia "Nastya" Romanov - the mischievous and cunning main character. Narration is told from her POV and the development she receives throughout the novel is a breath of fresh air. The emotions she feels leaps out to the reader on every page and is honestly the most relatable character in the entire novel.
Zash - at first he was a hardhearted Bolshevik but eventually warms to Nastya's mischievousness. He does a full 180 after a certain scene and it was really nice to see him and Nastya become close.
Alexei - Nastya's brother who has a terminal illness that weakens his body. He's sassy, stubborn (but not as much as Nastya), and calms the wildness within Nastya. Alexei is the yin to Nastya's yang.
The Romanov family - the first half of the book revolves around the family as a whole, but they all had equal parts throughout the storyline compared to the two that outshown everyone: Alexei and Nastya.
The Bolsheviks - the soldiers in charge of keeping the Romanov's in order. They're all stone and ice and everything but warmth and friendliness (besides Ivan and Zash of course.)
Ivan - oh my dear Ivan... (let's just leave it at that)
“It is if you separate the two- old life and new life. But once you learn that it's all one life and each day is a new page, it gets a bit easier to let your story take an unexpected path.”
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Romanov starts with the Romanov's in a house that is their base of exile, they have been taken into custody and are awaiting their execution trial. The family lives life to the best of their ability but then the dreadful day comes when half of the family is moved further away to be questioned. This only brings even more heartbreaking scenes until the moment when Nastya saves herself and Alexei.
Romanov is a historical retelling with a magical aspect that combines into a wonderfully executed novel. Family is the central focus, this ends up not only being the Romanov's greatest strength, but also their biggest burden. How the family is portrayed adds a sympathetic nature to the novel, and the relationship between Alexei and Nastya is not only sweet but also a strength that keeps them fighting together until the very end.
One thing that I really loved about Romanov, was that the Romanov's themselves were kind and forgiving to the Bolshevik's. They believed that they could prove their innocence to them by being friendly, plus it was just second nature to be friendly. The tension between the two was felt by everyone though, especially Nastya. Throughout the novel, you can see everything that she has to worry about but she still holds onto that little spark that makes her who she is, even despite the predicament she's in.
Nastya is a mischievous, cunning, and lovable young woman and her emotions leap out at the reader. When Zash enters the picture, he's nothing but harsh words and hostility. Nastya though, senses a kindness lurking underneath that stone wall and she becomes determined to release it.
As the story progresses, readers can sense the chemistry between the two of them and it makes you crave more of this heartbreaking story.
Story background and development –
The connections that are built with the reader and the narrator is beautiful and well crafted. And oh man! Was there a TON of background and development on more than just the main character. Romanov is a historical retelling of what the real Romanov family experienced, with a little bit of a fantasy twist to it of course. Nadine does an amazing job at giving the facts yet keeping it light enough to be read like a fantasy novel.
Plot –
History of fact and fiction with magic interwoven brings a tale that's not only intriguing but fascinating as well. Every page brings a few more steps into the build-up, causing this novel to be a pivoting story to be read by all.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors –
I did notice a few grammatical and spelling errors that took away from the scene but overall, Nadine's writing style is gripping and crafted in a way that allows nothing to pass you by.
Overall –
Romanov is a breathtaking and heart-wrenching story that will make the reader feel every tragedy, heartbreak, and moment of love that is seeped into every page.
Enjoyment –
I enjoyed every second of this novel and even stayed up late to devour it! All because I couldn't put it down. Nadine grabbed my attention and kept it until the very last page, leaving me in a ball of agony, mourning the pain that I felt.
Do I recommend?
H to the E to the L to the L to the Y to the E to the S, what does that spell? HELL YES! Everyone needs to pick this novel up and give it a read!!
“Let no one call you tame.”
4.5 stars
TRIGGER WARNINGS: murder, hostage situation, violence, alcoholism, loss of a loved one, starvation, terminal illness, executions, gunshots, trauma
“The bond of our hearts spans miles, memory, and time.”
Main Characters:
Anastasia "Nastya" Romanov - the mischievous and cunning main character. Narration is told from her POV and the development she receives throughout the novel is a breath of fresh air. The emotions she feels leaps out to the reader on every page and is honestly the most relatable character in the entire novel.
Zash - at first he was a hardhearted Bolshevik but eventually warms to Nastya's mischievousness. He does a full 180 after a certain scene and it was really nice to see him and Nastya become close.
Alexei - Nastya's brother who has a terminal illness that weakens his body. He's sassy, stubborn (but not as much as Nastya), and calms the wildness within Nastya. Alexei is the yin to Nastya's yang.
The Romanov family - the first half of the book revolves around the family as a whole, but they all had equal parts throughout the storyline compared to the two that outshown everyone: Alexei and Nastya.
The Bolsheviks - the soldiers in charge of keeping the Romanov's in order. They're all stone and ice and everything but warmth and friendliness (besides Ivan and Zash of course.)
Ivan - oh my dear Ivan... (let's just leave it at that)
“It is if you separate the two- old life and new life. But once you learn that it's all one life and each day is a new page, it gets a bit easier to let your story take an unexpected path.”
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Romanov starts with the Romanov's in a house that is their base of exile, they have been taken into custody and are awaiting their execution trial. The family lives life to the best of their ability but then the dreadful day comes when half of the family is moved further away to be questioned. This only brings even more heartbreaking scenes until the moment when Nastya saves herself and Alexei.
Romanov is a historical retelling with a magical aspect that combines into a wonderfully executed novel. Family is the central focus, this ends up not only being the Romanov's greatest strength, but also their biggest burden. How the family is portrayed adds a sympathetic nature to the novel, and the relationship between Alexei and Nastya is not only sweet but also a strength that keeps them fighting together until the very end.
One thing that I really loved about Romanov, was that the Romanov's themselves were kind and forgiving to the Bolshevik's. They believed that they could prove their innocence to them by being friendly, plus it was just second nature to be friendly. The tension between the two was felt by everyone though, especially Nastya. Throughout the novel, you can see everything that she has to worry about but she still holds onto that little spark that makes her who she is, even despite the predicament she's in.
Nastya is a mischievous, cunning, and lovable young woman and her emotions leap out at the reader. When Zash enters the picture, he's nothing but harsh words and hostility. Nastya though, senses a kindness lurking underneath that stone wall and she becomes determined to release it.
As the story progresses, readers can sense the chemistry between the two of them and it makes you crave more of this heartbreaking story.
Story background and development –
The connections that are built with the reader and the narrator is beautiful and well crafted. And oh man! Was there a TON of background and development on more than just the main character. Romanov is a historical retelling of what the real Romanov family experienced, with a little bit of a fantasy twist to it of course. Nadine does an amazing job at giving the facts yet keeping it light enough to be read like a fantasy novel.
Plot –
History of fact and fiction with magic interwoven brings a tale that's not only intriguing but fascinating as well. Every page brings a few more steps into the build-up, causing this novel to be a pivoting story to be read by all.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors –
I did notice a few grammatical and spelling errors that took away from the scene but overall, Nadine's writing style is gripping and crafted in a way that allows nothing to pass you by.
Overall –
Romanov is a breathtaking and heart-wrenching story that will make the reader feel every tragedy, heartbreak, and moment of love that is seeped into every page.
Enjoyment –
I enjoyed every second of this novel and even stayed up late to devour it! All because I couldn't put it down. Nadine grabbed my attention and kept it until the very last page, leaving me in a ball of agony, mourning the pain that I felt.
Do I recommend?
H to the E to the L to the L to the Y to the E to the S, what does that spell? HELL YES! Everyone needs to pick this novel up and give it a read!!
“Let no one call you tame.”
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019 (Updated Aug 11, 2019)
The monsters. (1 more)
Special effects - blend of CG and practical.
The Pale Lady. (2 more)
Basic rinse and repeat horror formula.
No emotional attachment to characters.
Fishing for Turds
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is probably considered the introduction to horror fiction for anyone who was in middle school in the mid to late 1990s. I distinctly remember checking out at least one of the books before I was a teenager, but the story that has stuck with me multiple decades later has and always will be, “The Red Spot.” The thing about the Scary Stories books is that they were just these random collections of creepy tales meant to make the reader anxious, uneasy, or even frightened, so the fact that somebody attempted to make a coherent film out of a jumbled mix of stories from all three books is kind of incredible.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
<a href="https://bookingwayreads.wordpress.com">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://https://www.instagram.com/ernest.bookingway/">Bookstagram</a>; | <a href="https://https://twitter.com/bookingwayreads">Twitter</a>;
4.5 stars
TRIGGER WARNINGS: murder, hostage situation, violence, alcoholism, loss of a loved one, starvation, terminal illness, executions, gunshots, trauma
“The bond of our hearts spans miles, memory, and time.”
Main Characters:
Anastasia "Nastya" Romanov - the mischievous and cunning main character. Narration is told from her POV and the development she receives throughout the novel is a breath of fresh air. The emotions she feels leaps out to the reader on every page and is honestly the most relatable character in the entire novel.
Zash - at first he was a hardhearted Bolshevik but eventually warms to Nastya's mischievousness. He does a full 180 after a certain scene and it was really nice to see him and Nastya become close.
Alexei - Nastya's brother who has a terminal illness that weakens his body. He's sassy, stubborn (but not as much as Nastya), and calms the wildness within Nastya. Alexei is the yin to Nastya's yang.
The Romanov family - the first half of the book revolves around the family as a whole, but they all had equal parts throughout the storyline compared to the two that outshown everyone: Alexei and Nastya.
The Bolsheviks - the soldiers in charge of keeping the Romanov's in order. They're all stone and ice and everything but warmth and friendliness (besides Ivan and Zash of course.)
Ivan - oh my dear Ivan... (let's just leave it at that)
“It is if you separate the two- old life and new life. But once you learn that it's all one life and each day is a new page, it gets a bit easier to let your story take an unexpected path.”
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Romanov starts with the Romanov's in a house that is their base of exile, they have been taken into custody and are awaiting their execution trial. The family lives life to the best of their ability but then the dreadful day comes when half of the family is moved further away to be questioned. This only brings even more heartbreaking scenes until the moment when Nastya saves herself and Alexei.
Romanov is a historical retelling with a magical aspect that combines into a wonderfully executed novel. Family is the central focus, this ends up not only being the Romanov's greatest strength, but also their biggest burden. How the family is portrayed adds a sympathetic nature to the novel, and the relationship between Alexei and Nastya is not only sweet but also a strength that keeps them fighting together until the very end.
One thing that I really loved about Romanov, was that the Romanov's themselves were kind and forgiving to the Bolshevik's. They believed that they could prove their innocence to them by being friendly, plus it was just second nature to be friendly. The tension between the two was felt by everyone though, especially Nastya. Throughout the novel, you can see everything that she has to worry about but she still holds onto that little spark that makes her who she is, even despite the predicament she's in.
Nastya is a mischievous, cunning, and lovable young woman and her emotions leap out at the reader. When Zash enters the picture, he's nothing but harsh words and hostility. Nastya though, senses a kindness lurking underneath that stone wall and she becomes determined to release it.
As the story progresses, readers can sense the chemistry between the two of them and it makes you crave more of this heartbreaking story.
Story background and development –
The connections that are built with the reader and the narrator is beautiful and well crafted. And oh man! Was there a TON of background and development on more than just the main character. Romanov is a historical retelling of what the real Romanov family experienced, with a little bit of a fantasy twist to it of course. Nadine does an amazing job at giving the facts yet keeping it light enough to be read like a fantasy novel.
Plot –
History of fact and fiction with magic interwoven brings a tale that's not only intriguing but fascinating as well. Every page brings a few more steps into the build-up, causing this novel to be a pivoting story to be read by all.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors –
I did notice a few grammatical and spelling errors that took away from the scene but overall, Nadine's writing style is gripping and crafted in a way that allows nothing to pass you by.
Overall –
Romanov is a breathtaking and heart-wrenching story that will make the reader feel every tragedy, heartbreak, and moment of love that is seeped into every page.
Enjoyment –
I enjoyed every second of this novel and even stayed up late to devour it! All because I couldn't put it down. Nadine grabbed my attention and kept it until the very last page, leaving me in a ball of agony, mourning the pain that I felt.
Do I recommend?
H to the E to the L to the L to the Y to the E to the S, what does that spell? HELL YES! Everyone needs to pick this novel up and give it a read!!
“Let no one call you tame.”
4.5 stars
TRIGGER WARNINGS: murder, hostage situation, violence, alcoholism, loss of a loved one, starvation, terminal illness, executions, gunshots, trauma
“The bond of our hearts spans miles, memory, and time.”
Main Characters:
Anastasia "Nastya" Romanov - the mischievous and cunning main character. Narration is told from her POV and the development she receives throughout the novel is a breath of fresh air. The emotions she feels leaps out to the reader on every page and is honestly the most relatable character in the entire novel.
Zash - at first he was a hardhearted Bolshevik but eventually warms to Nastya's mischievousness. He does a full 180 after a certain scene and it was really nice to see him and Nastya become close.
Alexei - Nastya's brother who has a terminal illness that weakens his body. He's sassy, stubborn (but not as much as Nastya), and calms the wildness within Nastya. Alexei is the yin to Nastya's yang.
The Romanov family - the first half of the book revolves around the family as a whole, but they all had equal parts throughout the storyline compared to the two that outshown everyone: Alexei and Nastya.
The Bolsheviks - the soldiers in charge of keeping the Romanov's in order. They're all stone and ice and everything but warmth and friendliness (besides Ivan and Zash of course.)
Ivan - oh my dear Ivan... (let's just leave it at that)
“It is if you separate the two- old life and new life. But once you learn that it's all one life and each day is a new page, it gets a bit easier to let your story take an unexpected path.”
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Romanov starts with the Romanov's in a house that is their base of exile, they have been taken into custody and are awaiting their execution trial. The family lives life to the best of their ability but then the dreadful day comes when half of the family is moved further away to be questioned. This only brings even more heartbreaking scenes until the moment when Nastya saves herself and Alexei.
Romanov is a historical retelling with a magical aspect that combines into a wonderfully executed novel. Family is the central focus, this ends up not only being the Romanov's greatest strength, but also their biggest burden. How the family is portrayed adds a sympathetic nature to the novel, and the relationship between Alexei and Nastya is not only sweet but also a strength that keeps them fighting together until the very end.
One thing that I really loved about Romanov, was that the Romanov's themselves were kind and forgiving to the Bolshevik's. They believed that they could prove their innocence to them by being friendly, plus it was just second nature to be friendly. The tension between the two was felt by everyone though, especially Nastya. Throughout the novel, you can see everything that she has to worry about but she still holds onto that little spark that makes her who she is, even despite the predicament she's in.
Nastya is a mischievous, cunning, and lovable young woman and her emotions leap out at the reader. When Zash enters the picture, he's nothing but harsh words and hostility. Nastya though, senses a kindness lurking underneath that stone wall and she becomes determined to release it.
As the story progresses, readers can sense the chemistry between the two of them and it makes you crave more of this heartbreaking story.
Story background and development –
The connections that are built with the reader and the narrator is beautiful and well crafted. And oh man! Was there a TON of background and development on more than just the main character. Romanov is a historical retelling of what the real Romanov family experienced, with a little bit of a fantasy twist to it of course. Nadine does an amazing job at giving the facts yet keeping it light enough to be read like a fantasy novel.
Plot –
History of fact and fiction with magic interwoven brings a tale that's not only intriguing but fascinating as well. Every page brings a few more steps into the build-up, causing this novel to be a pivoting story to be read by all.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors –
I did notice a few grammatical and spelling errors that took away from the scene but overall, Nadine's writing style is gripping and crafted in a way that allows nothing to pass you by.
Overall –
Romanov is a breathtaking and heart-wrenching story that will make the reader feel every tragedy, heartbreak, and moment of love that is seeped into every page.
Enjoyment –
I enjoyed every second of this novel and even stayed up late to devour it! All because I couldn't put it down. Nadine grabbed my attention and kept it until the very last page, leaving me in a ball of agony, mourning the pain that I felt.
Do I recommend?
H to the E to the L to the L to the Y to the E to the S, what does that spell? HELL YES! Everyone needs to pick this novel up and give it a read!!
“Let no one call you tame.”
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Groupers (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated The Naked Future in Books
Aug 5, 2018
Book Review by Cari Mayhew. Rating 7.5/10
This is a book about how the digital footprint we leave behind us can be used to make predictions about our future in all aspects of our lives. But are we seeing the coming to being of a dystopian science fiction, or are we tapping into a new superpower?
Every app on every device we use leaves a digital trail about us, and this has implications in the fields of medicine and the spread of infections, education and learning, and crime prediction, through to movie preference and dating.
The book predominantly examines the value to society in general but also looks at the benefits to the individual. Of course, these benefits come at a cost to our privacy, which the book also briefly addresses. Each chapter is centered on its own topic. I will mention each but in the interests of brevity won’t go into detail on each topic.
Chapter 1 begins by describing how certain apps can be extremely useful warning providers, but by the end of the chapter, we are looking at how your smartphone apps can be used to locate you, even when your GPS is turned off and you’re not geo-tagging posts or tweets. With modern statistical models and enough data points, it’s possible to predict where you will be down to the hour and within a square block one and a half years from now. Turning off your GPS doesn't actually make you less predictable, it just makes your predictability level harder to detect - your future remains naked.
Similarly, in Chapter 2 which examines deliberate self-tracking, Tucker notes that Fitbit users who are confused or ignorant of the device’s privacy settings are inadvertently sharing the data details of their sexual activity.
This seems like frightening stuff, but then the conversation turns to more benevolent uses of such technology. Chapter 3, by way of an imagined story, examines how such technology can be used to predict the spread of dangerous infections, including the identification of new strains of virus as new mutations occur.
Chapter 4 looks at the use of such technology in weather forecasting, and how it’s been used to make way for insurance against the effects of the weather for affected businesses. Chapter 5 explores how movie/book choice and ratings can be used to predict what makes a good movie/book.
We go back to the frightening stuff in Chapter 6. Here Tucker talks about how the smartphone has become the ultimate shopping accessory. Knowing what habitual time an individual wants a coffee, cig, or beer, is ideal for online advertisers, who will be able to send you a voucher/coupon or a mere suggestion right there on the spot. There could also be surveillance systems examining what you pick up and consider buying but don't put into basket /trolley. Tucker goes on to describe how data brokers such as Acxiom have begun selling on to advertisers access to not only your data to also to your future decisions.
Chapter 7 looks at education and learning, and makes the following good points: “What telemetric education offers is the chance for all students to raise their hands and be heard, without fear of confirming some unflattering, broadly held perception about their social group.” And “Imagine for a moment the power of knowing beforehand how well you would perform on a test but how disempowered you would feel if that same future was naked to your competition, or to your future potential employers.”
I like the title of chapter 8 “When Your Phone Says You’re In Love”. Here Tucker tells how online dating sites have become a living social science lab. Again here your personal details can be sold on. In the future, you could be rating your actual get-togethers on the app. Already invented is a “sociometer” which detects unconscious biological signals which show what role you’re taking in a conversation, and can then produce predictions on how the rest of the conversation will go.
Chapters 9 and 10 look at predictions in the where, when and who of acts of crime. He discusses where it has worked so far. But on this Tucker says “Predictive policing in the wrong hands looks less like a boon to public safety and more like a totalitarian hammer.”
The book concludes with Chapter 11, titled “The World That Anticipates Your Every Move”. Here one interviewee said as “Privacy is a blip on the radar of history.” Indeed the chapter ends with an obituary to privacy, where Tucker says “we will feel increasingly powerless against the tide of transparency rendering this planet in a new form as surely as the movement of glaciers carved our canyons and valleys.”
I’ve highlighted here the more worrisome aspects of the topics, but it’s important to note that Tucker does aim to offer a prescription for the situation, though it’s spread out in occasional paragraphs here and there rather than as a useful reference at the end. That said I found the actionable advice was rather brief and unoriginal.
Tucker presents a fair and balanced view of this important and highly relevant topic of our times, and the book is clearly well-researched. Some chapters show a little humor which was fun, but although the book is aimed at the layman, I often felt like I was reading a science textbook. The book is a real eye-opener, especially if it’s something you hadn’t given much thought to. The overall message of the book is clear: our data is already out there, but it’s ours first and foremost, and we can be savvy and use it to our advantage.
This is a book about how the digital footprint we leave behind us can be used to make predictions about our future in all aspects of our lives. But are we seeing the coming to being of a dystopian science fiction, or are we tapping into a new superpower?
Every app on every device we use leaves a digital trail about us, and this has implications in the fields of medicine and the spread of infections, education and learning, and crime prediction, through to movie preference and dating.
The book predominantly examines the value to society in general but also looks at the benefits to the individual. Of course, these benefits come at a cost to our privacy, which the book also briefly addresses. Each chapter is centered on its own topic. I will mention each but in the interests of brevity won’t go into detail on each topic.
Chapter 1 begins by describing how certain apps can be extremely useful warning providers, but by the end of the chapter, we are looking at how your smartphone apps can be used to locate you, even when your GPS is turned off and you’re not geo-tagging posts or tweets. With modern statistical models and enough data points, it’s possible to predict where you will be down to the hour and within a square block one and a half years from now. Turning off your GPS doesn't actually make you less predictable, it just makes your predictability level harder to detect - your future remains naked.
Similarly, in Chapter 2 which examines deliberate self-tracking, Tucker notes that Fitbit users who are confused or ignorant of the device’s privacy settings are inadvertently sharing the data details of their sexual activity.
This seems like frightening stuff, but then the conversation turns to more benevolent uses of such technology. Chapter 3, by way of an imagined story, examines how such technology can be used to predict the spread of dangerous infections, including the identification of new strains of virus as new mutations occur.
Chapter 4 looks at the use of such technology in weather forecasting, and how it’s been used to make way for insurance against the effects of the weather for affected businesses. Chapter 5 explores how movie/book choice and ratings can be used to predict what makes a good movie/book.
We go back to the frightening stuff in Chapter 6. Here Tucker talks about how the smartphone has become the ultimate shopping accessory. Knowing what habitual time an individual wants a coffee, cig, or beer, is ideal for online advertisers, who will be able to send you a voucher/coupon or a mere suggestion right there on the spot. There could also be surveillance systems examining what you pick up and consider buying but don't put into basket /trolley. Tucker goes on to describe how data brokers such as Acxiom have begun selling on to advertisers access to not only your data to also to your future decisions.
Chapter 7 looks at education and learning, and makes the following good points: “What telemetric education offers is the chance for all students to raise their hands and be heard, without fear of confirming some unflattering, broadly held perception about their social group.” And “Imagine for a moment the power of knowing beforehand how well you would perform on a test but how disempowered you would feel if that same future was naked to your competition, or to your future potential employers.”
I like the title of chapter 8 “When Your Phone Says You’re In Love”. Here Tucker tells how online dating sites have become a living social science lab. Again here your personal details can be sold on. In the future, you could be rating your actual get-togethers on the app. Already invented is a “sociometer” which detects unconscious biological signals which show what role you’re taking in a conversation, and can then produce predictions on how the rest of the conversation will go.
Chapters 9 and 10 look at predictions in the where, when and who of acts of crime. He discusses where it has worked so far. But on this Tucker says “Predictive policing in the wrong hands looks less like a boon to public safety and more like a totalitarian hammer.”
The book concludes with Chapter 11, titled “The World That Anticipates Your Every Move”. Here one interviewee said as “Privacy is a blip on the radar of history.” Indeed the chapter ends with an obituary to privacy, where Tucker says “we will feel increasingly powerless against the tide of transparency rendering this planet in a new form as surely as the movement of glaciers carved our canyons and valleys.”
I’ve highlighted here the more worrisome aspects of the topics, but it’s important to note that Tucker does aim to offer a prescription for the situation, though it’s spread out in occasional paragraphs here and there rather than as a useful reference at the end. That said I found the actionable advice was rather brief and unoriginal.
Tucker presents a fair and balanced view of this important and highly relevant topic of our times, and the book is clearly well-researched. Some chapters show a little humor which was fun, but although the book is aimed at the layman, I often felt like I was reading a science textbook. The book is a real eye-opener, especially if it’s something you hadn’t given much thought to. The overall message of the book is clear: our data is already out there, but it’s ours first and foremost, and we can be savvy and use it to our advantage.