Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Delirium in Books
Jun 7, 2018
Review from my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
I really, really, really wanted to like this book. In fact, I wanted to love it, but it just didn't happen. I just couldn't get into it at all no matter how hard I tried. It's gotten some rave reviews so maybe there's just something wrong with me.
Lena is a seventeen year old girl who doesn't challenge anything about her government. She's too scared of the consequences. In a few months, on her 18th birthday, she'll be cured of the disease, the disease of love. She's looking forward to the day she can be cured of love. In fact, she's counting down the days. However, everything changes when she meets the gorgeous Alex, an invalid (another name for someone who is uncured after their 18th birthday). Now she doesn't want to be cured as Alex has opened her eyes to this disease called love. Lena is wondering if love was ever really a disease at all. Lena is putting herself at risk to be with Alex. Will she have her happy ever after or will she be cured?
The world building isn't bad. The story takes place in Portland. The author does a great job of trying to make the reader believe in a world where love is banned. It is quite believable.
I don't think the cover suits the book at all. Lauren Oliver has a habit of just putting faces on the covers of her books. However, I think this is the easy way out. Putting a photo of a face on a book doesn't really tell us anything about the book. I wish Ms. Oliver would consider changing her covers to make them relevant to the actual story.
The title, however, definitely suits the book. Love is seen as a type of delirium. It's banned, and the government wants everyone to believe how love will make you delirious. It's a great title for the book.
I found the pacing to be too slow for my liking. Don't get me wrong, it's written quite nicely, but it's just too slow. I had to force myself to read the book most of the time. I just couldn't get into it, and I found myself not really caring about the characters. There is one good bit, and it's only about two or three chapters towards the middle of the book.
The dialogue is easy to understand and is written beautifully. There are a few swear words however. (Lena drops the f-bomb a couple of times and the s word is used a couple of times as well). The good thing is this book isn't littered with swear words which is nice.
I just couldn't relate to any of the characters. Lena drove me crazy!! She was too much of a goody goody and too scared throughout the book. It especially annoyed me when she couldn't tell the difference if she was crying or sweating. I've never had a problem telling the difference!! And Alex, nothing really annoyed me about him, but I just couldn't feel him if you know what I mean. I basically found that I couldn't give a toss about what happened to Lena and Alex. I did like Hana as she was more of a free spirit and willing to take risks. I liked how full of life she was. She was the only character I kind of cared about, but she wasn't a main character, nor was she mentioned as much as I would've liked her to be.
Throughout most of the book I just felt really bored with the book which made me kind of sad because I really wanted to enjoy this book after reading some reviews about how great this book was. It was a challenge for me to get through the book, save for two or three chapters. This book just didn't really do anything for me, and I won't be reading the rest of the series as I don't really care what happens.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. It's just too boring and is lacking something.
Overall, I'd rate Delirium by Lauren Oliver a 2.5 out of a 5.
I really, really, really wanted to like this book. In fact, I wanted to love it, but it just didn't happen. I just couldn't get into it at all no matter how hard I tried. It's gotten some rave reviews so maybe there's just something wrong with me.
Lena is a seventeen year old girl who doesn't challenge anything about her government. She's too scared of the consequences. In a few months, on her 18th birthday, she'll be cured of the disease, the disease of love. She's looking forward to the day she can be cured of love. In fact, she's counting down the days. However, everything changes when she meets the gorgeous Alex, an invalid (another name for someone who is uncured after their 18th birthday). Now she doesn't want to be cured as Alex has opened her eyes to this disease called love. Lena is wondering if love was ever really a disease at all. Lena is putting herself at risk to be with Alex. Will she have her happy ever after or will she be cured?
The world building isn't bad. The story takes place in Portland. The author does a great job of trying to make the reader believe in a world where love is banned. It is quite believable.
I don't think the cover suits the book at all. Lauren Oliver has a habit of just putting faces on the covers of her books. However, I think this is the easy way out. Putting a photo of a face on a book doesn't really tell us anything about the book. I wish Ms. Oliver would consider changing her covers to make them relevant to the actual story.
The title, however, definitely suits the book. Love is seen as a type of delirium. It's banned, and the government wants everyone to believe how love will make you delirious. It's a great title for the book.
I found the pacing to be too slow for my liking. Don't get me wrong, it's written quite nicely, but it's just too slow. I had to force myself to read the book most of the time. I just couldn't get into it, and I found myself not really caring about the characters. There is one good bit, and it's only about two or three chapters towards the middle of the book.
The dialogue is easy to understand and is written beautifully. There are a few swear words however. (Lena drops the f-bomb a couple of times and the s word is used a couple of times as well). The good thing is this book isn't littered with swear words which is nice.
I just couldn't relate to any of the characters. Lena drove me crazy!! She was too much of a goody goody and too scared throughout the book. It especially annoyed me when she couldn't tell the difference if she was crying or sweating. I've never had a problem telling the difference!! And Alex, nothing really annoyed me about him, but I just couldn't feel him if you know what I mean. I basically found that I couldn't give a toss about what happened to Lena and Alex. I did like Hana as she was more of a free spirit and willing to take risks. I liked how full of life she was. She was the only character I kind of cared about, but she wasn't a main character, nor was she mentioned as much as I would've liked her to be.
Throughout most of the book I just felt really bored with the book which made me kind of sad because I really wanted to enjoy this book after reading some reviews about how great this book was. It was a challenge for me to get through the book, save for two or three chapters. This book just didn't really do anything for me, and I won't be reading the rest of the series as I don't really care what happens.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. It's just too boring and is lacking something.
Overall, I'd rate Delirium by Lauren Oliver a 2.5 out of a 5.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Snow Child in Books
May 30, 2017
A Fairytale
“Terrific”, “Spellbinding” and “Enchanting” are just three of the many words that critics have used to describe this book; they are also a slight exaggeration. Obviously it is a matter of personal opinion but this novel, whilst having an interesting storyline, was a little too drawn out and, at times… not exactly boring but not all that gripping.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, Snegurochka, which in English translates to The Snow Maiden. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, Little Daughter of the Snow, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with Snegurochka and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that The Snow Child will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, The Snow Child was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, Snegurochka, which in English translates to The Snow Maiden. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, Little Daughter of the Snow, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with Snegurochka and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that The Snow Child will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, The Snow Child was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Snow Child in Books
Dec 14, 2018
“Terrific”, “Spellbinding” and “Enchanting” are just three of the many words that critics have used to describe this book; they are also a slight exaggeration. Obviously it is a matter of personal opinion but this novel, whilst having an interesting storyline, was a little too drawn out and, at times… not exactly boring but not all that gripping.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, <i>Snegurochka</i>, which in English translates to <i>The Snow Maiden</i>. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, <i>Little Daughter of the Snow</i>, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with <i>Snegurochka</i> and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that <i>The Snow Child</i> will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, <i>The Snow Child</i> was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, <i>Snegurochka</i>, which in English translates to <i>The Snow Maiden</i>. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, <i>Little Daughter of the Snow</i>, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with <i>Snegurochka</i> and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that <i>The Snow Child</i> will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, <i>The Snow Child</i> was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
DNB Latvija
Finance and Utilities
App
Tava banka Tavā telefonā! Izmēģiniet DNB mobilo aplikāciju un novērtējiet iespēju ērti,...
Kevin Wilson (179 KP) rated Spyro Trilogy Reignited in Video Games
Jan 23, 2019
Looks beautiful and colourful (3 more)
Satisfies your collecting addictions
Fun characters and witty dialogue
3 games in 1 well worth the money
Fantastic remaster with 1 huge flaw
This game was just loads and loads of fun. This is the ultimated game of collectibles. Its basically the point and it works today because thats what we like to do in games.
The game looks beautiful and colourful. The characters are fun and are very witty. There have been some slight changes with enemies here and theres. Sounds were changed and bullets were changed to paint which didnt need to be done.
The first game was the most simplest of the games. Go through levels collecting gems and dragons and thats it. It doesnt sound like the most in depth story but it was a ton of fun and in a way i prefered it to the 2nd game.
The 2nd had a lot more objectives within levels and had a bigger emphasis on backtracking. You couldnt swim or climb until later so you would have to go back to a previous level to 100% it. I didnt mind it too much, the levels are fun. Spyro has a lot more abilities with this game too. Like i said, swimming and climbing being a couple. You only had to touch the water in the first and you would be dead.
The 3rd was my favourite of the 3. It felt like it merged the 2 games. Had the objectives of the 2nd game while keeping it simple. But i got to the 3rd world out of 4 and experienced a game breaking glitch in the lost fleet level that forcrd me to restart the entire game since you cant restart the level. It was so annoying when i was trying to 100% the games but the games were fun enough to go through again. I just feel its sloppy work of the developers that this glitch got through testing or that it has not been patched yet since many people have had this glitch too.
In a game thats out now it is also shocking that there are no subtitle options either. It feels this is a must nowadays but they left it out. The only patch this game has seen was on day one and you have to download it because it is only the 1st game that is on the disk. The patch enables the other 2. When you see games like the crash trilogy and uncharted the nathan drake collection you would think it would be simple to put all bames on the disk.
Overall though its fun and has a great difficulty to it that feels very satisfying. I would recommend it, just be careful and dont rush to complete an objective. Thats what caused the glitch for me.
The game looks beautiful and colourful. The characters are fun and are very witty. There have been some slight changes with enemies here and theres. Sounds were changed and bullets were changed to paint which didnt need to be done.
The first game was the most simplest of the games. Go through levels collecting gems and dragons and thats it. It doesnt sound like the most in depth story but it was a ton of fun and in a way i prefered it to the 2nd game.
The 2nd had a lot more objectives within levels and had a bigger emphasis on backtracking. You couldnt swim or climb until later so you would have to go back to a previous level to 100% it. I didnt mind it too much, the levels are fun. Spyro has a lot more abilities with this game too. Like i said, swimming and climbing being a couple. You only had to touch the water in the first and you would be dead.
The 3rd was my favourite of the 3. It felt like it merged the 2 games. Had the objectives of the 2nd game while keeping it simple. But i got to the 3rd world out of 4 and experienced a game breaking glitch in the lost fleet level that forcrd me to restart the entire game since you cant restart the level. It was so annoying when i was trying to 100% the games but the games were fun enough to go through again. I just feel its sloppy work of the developers that this glitch got through testing or that it has not been patched yet since many people have had this glitch too.
In a game thats out now it is also shocking that there are no subtitle options either. It feels this is a must nowadays but they left it out. The only patch this game has seen was on day one and you have to download it because it is only the 1st game that is on the disk. The patch enables the other 2. When you see games like the crash trilogy and uncharted the nathan drake collection you would think it would be simple to put all bames on the disk.
Overall though its fun and has a great difficulty to it that feels very satisfying. I would recommend it, just be careful and dont rush to complete an objective. Thats what caused the glitch for me.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My Unfair Lady in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Unfair Lady by Kathryne Kennedy
Genre: Historical fiction, Historical Romance
Rating: 4/5
Summary (from the back of the book):
HE CREATED THE PERFECT WOMAN… the impoverished Duke of Monchester despises the rich Americans who flock to London, seeking to buy their way into the ranks of the British peerage. So when railroad heiress Summer Wine Lee offers him a king’s ransom if he’ll teach her to become a proper lady, he’s prepared to rebuff her. But when he meets the petite beauty with the knife in her boot, it’s not her fortune he finds impossible to resist…
…FOR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER MAN. Frontier-bred Summer Wine Lee has no interest in winning over London society—it’s the New York bluebloods and her future mother-in-law she’s determined to impress. She knows the cost of smoothing her rough-and-tumble frontier edges will be high. But she never imagined it might cost her her heart…
Review: This book is so cute! The dialogue is lively, the characters are likeable (or in the case of the “bad ones”, hate-able), and the images and descriptions are clear and visible. I loved it by the end of the first chapter.
Summer was my kind of girl. She grinned when things were funny instead of trying to remain indifferent, she wasn’t afraid to show how she felt—but she could also throw a knife, shoot an arrow better than the woman champion of their day, and mount and ride a horse bareback (which I think is so cool!). She has a love for animals—and odd ones at that. She owns a three-legged dog, a dog with four legs but the size of a small horse, a monkey, a pocket-sized puppy, a fox, and a cat with no back legs (it sits in a cart and rolls around the room). She was raised by an Indian (one of those childhood dreams that I never quite left behind…) and he was the one who had taught her all that great stuff. Watching her try to settle into society was hilarious.
MY UNFAIR LADY has a lot of tension in it—both inner turmoil from poor Summer, and also sexual tension between the characters. However, it wasn’t overpowering because was so funny. I found that I laughed just as often as tension was built, so there was a constant, even balance. The end was very exciting, and I found it impossible to put down. Overall, reading this book was a hilarious and wonderful experience, and an unforgettable escape from reality.
Plot: My Fair Lady (the movie) shows a girl who is transformed to a lady, then the man falls in love with her. I love the change that has taken place in MY UNFAIR LADY—The man doesn’t want to change her, because he loves her the way she is. I like this plot better than the first!
Writing: The writing was decent, acceptable, and more readable than a lot of newly published romances. Though it wasn’t Dante, it wasn’t hard to read either.
Content: Refreshingly, there was no language in this book. Summer has her own set of expletives, but they weren’t offensive (“Tarnation!”). As far as sex, let’s just say there were several scenes (pages) in this book that I skipped completely, and just started reading again where the dialogue picked up. I didn’t miss anything important.
Recommendation: Ages 18+ to lovers of Historical fiction, Romance in general, or anyone who loves a girl who can shoot a gun, wield a knife, or use a bow and arrow better than a man!
**Thanks to Danielle at Sourcebooks for supplying my review copy!**
Genre: Historical fiction, Historical Romance
Rating: 4/5
Summary (from the back of the book):
HE CREATED THE PERFECT WOMAN… the impoverished Duke of Monchester despises the rich Americans who flock to London, seeking to buy their way into the ranks of the British peerage. So when railroad heiress Summer Wine Lee offers him a king’s ransom if he’ll teach her to become a proper lady, he’s prepared to rebuff her. But when he meets the petite beauty with the knife in her boot, it’s not her fortune he finds impossible to resist…
…FOR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER MAN. Frontier-bred Summer Wine Lee has no interest in winning over London society—it’s the New York bluebloods and her future mother-in-law she’s determined to impress. She knows the cost of smoothing her rough-and-tumble frontier edges will be high. But she never imagined it might cost her her heart…
Review: This book is so cute! The dialogue is lively, the characters are likeable (or in the case of the “bad ones”, hate-able), and the images and descriptions are clear and visible. I loved it by the end of the first chapter.
Summer was my kind of girl. She grinned when things were funny instead of trying to remain indifferent, she wasn’t afraid to show how she felt—but she could also throw a knife, shoot an arrow better than the woman champion of their day, and mount and ride a horse bareback (which I think is so cool!). She has a love for animals—and odd ones at that. She owns a three-legged dog, a dog with four legs but the size of a small horse, a monkey, a pocket-sized puppy, a fox, and a cat with no back legs (it sits in a cart and rolls around the room). She was raised by an Indian (one of those childhood dreams that I never quite left behind…) and he was the one who had taught her all that great stuff. Watching her try to settle into society was hilarious.
MY UNFAIR LADY has a lot of tension in it—both inner turmoil from poor Summer, and also sexual tension between the characters. However, it wasn’t overpowering because was so funny. I found that I laughed just as often as tension was built, so there was a constant, even balance. The end was very exciting, and I found it impossible to put down. Overall, reading this book was a hilarious and wonderful experience, and an unforgettable escape from reality.
Plot: My Fair Lady (the movie) shows a girl who is transformed to a lady, then the man falls in love with her. I love the change that has taken place in MY UNFAIR LADY—The man doesn’t want to change her, because he loves her the way she is. I like this plot better than the first!
Writing: The writing was decent, acceptable, and more readable than a lot of newly published romances. Though it wasn’t Dante, it wasn’t hard to read either.
Content: Refreshingly, there was no language in this book. Summer has her own set of expletives, but they weren’t offensive (“Tarnation!”). As far as sex, let’s just say there were several scenes (pages) in this book that I skipped completely, and just started reading again where the dialogue picked up. I didn’t miss anything important.
Recommendation: Ages 18+ to lovers of Historical fiction, Romance in general, or anyone who loves a girl who can shoot a gun, wield a knife, or use a bow and arrow better than a man!
**Thanks to Danielle at Sourcebooks for supplying my review copy!**
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Push (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Inside a secure facility a woman named Kira (Camilla Belle), is about to be injected with an experimental drug that will soon set a chain of events into motion that will turn Hong Kong into a battleground. The facility is operated by the ultra secret agency known as “The Division” who are tasked with locating, controlling, training, and at times, eliminating those who possess psychic abilities as they endeavor to create an army of highly trained specialists with psychic abilities.
In the new action film “Push”, Chris Evans stars as Nick Grant, a man who has tried to keep a low profile after seeing his father murdered by Division ten years earlier. Nick has taken refuge in Hong Kong in an effort to stay away from Division as he has no desire to get involved with their or for that matter, anyone’s agenda or cause.
Nick has become indebted to several local thugs due to his gambling, and his inability to fully use his psychic ability to move objects with his mind and when Division arrives looking for a runaway, Nick is eager to get out of town before he gets dragged into the conflict.
Shortly after the Division agents leave his home, Nick is visited by a young girl named Cassie (Dakota Fanning), who informs him that they need to work with one another to earn 6 million dollars and save themselves. While Nick is hesitant, he remembers that is late father told him a young girl would one day give him a flower and when she comes, he must do as she says.
Before long, Nick and Cassie are attacked by a local gang who like Cassie and Nick are able to use psychic abilities. After a narrow escape, Nick learns that Cassie is able to see the future and she has learned that the woman that Division is seeking is vital as she has stolen a valuable drug that they need to enhance the psychic abilities of those they inject. They fact that the drug has proven fatal to everyone injected aside from Kira and would command a huge price has Division, Nick, Cassie, and the local gang scrambling to locate Kira. Cassie has also informed Nick that she sees both Nick and her dying as a result of their involvement and must find a way to change their fates.
As if matters were not complicated enough, leading the Division search is Henry Carver (Djimon Hounsou), the same man behind the death of Nick’s father. Carver will stop at nothing to retrieve Kira and the missing drug, and he and his dangerous minions do not care how many people die along the way.
“Push” is an interesting film that puts the focus on the characters rather than FX. While there is action in the film, it does not dominate the film. The neon and crowded streets of Hong Kong serve as a perfect backdrop to the film and the strong work by Evans and Fanning make them a winning combination as does the interesting premise of the film. While the film does lose some of its pacing along the way as it seems unsure if it wants to be an all out action flick, or a drama, the film rebounds and provides a conclusion which is an obvious lead for a sequel.
While some people have commented to me that the movies seems like a rip off of Heroes, I found it to be fresher and more entertaining than the show, which in my opinion has be coasting since the spectacular first 12 episodes.
In the end, “Push” has just enough action and originality to combine with the charismatic and interesting cast to make an enjoyable movie experience.
In the new action film “Push”, Chris Evans stars as Nick Grant, a man who has tried to keep a low profile after seeing his father murdered by Division ten years earlier. Nick has taken refuge in Hong Kong in an effort to stay away from Division as he has no desire to get involved with their or for that matter, anyone’s agenda or cause.
Nick has become indebted to several local thugs due to his gambling, and his inability to fully use his psychic ability to move objects with his mind and when Division arrives looking for a runaway, Nick is eager to get out of town before he gets dragged into the conflict.
Shortly after the Division agents leave his home, Nick is visited by a young girl named Cassie (Dakota Fanning), who informs him that they need to work with one another to earn 6 million dollars and save themselves. While Nick is hesitant, he remembers that is late father told him a young girl would one day give him a flower and when she comes, he must do as she says.
Before long, Nick and Cassie are attacked by a local gang who like Cassie and Nick are able to use psychic abilities. After a narrow escape, Nick learns that Cassie is able to see the future and she has learned that the woman that Division is seeking is vital as she has stolen a valuable drug that they need to enhance the psychic abilities of those they inject. They fact that the drug has proven fatal to everyone injected aside from Kira and would command a huge price has Division, Nick, Cassie, and the local gang scrambling to locate Kira. Cassie has also informed Nick that she sees both Nick and her dying as a result of their involvement and must find a way to change their fates.
As if matters were not complicated enough, leading the Division search is Henry Carver (Djimon Hounsou), the same man behind the death of Nick’s father. Carver will stop at nothing to retrieve Kira and the missing drug, and he and his dangerous minions do not care how many people die along the way.
“Push” is an interesting film that puts the focus on the characters rather than FX. While there is action in the film, it does not dominate the film. The neon and crowded streets of Hong Kong serve as a perfect backdrop to the film and the strong work by Evans and Fanning make them a winning combination as does the interesting premise of the film. While the film does lose some of its pacing along the way as it seems unsure if it wants to be an all out action flick, or a drama, the film rebounds and provides a conclusion which is an obvious lead for a sequel.
While some people have commented to me that the movies seems like a rip off of Heroes, I found it to be fresher and more entertaining than the show, which in my opinion has be coasting since the spectacular first 12 episodes.
In the end, “Push” has just enough action and originality to combine with the charismatic and interesting cast to make an enjoyable movie experience.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 9, 2021
A classic
Film #14 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Saving Private Ryan
When I think of war films, I immediately think of Saving Private Ryan. This is partly because I shamefully haven’t seen the majority of the older classic war films (but I may have done by the time I reach the end of this list), and also because this is the first war film I ever saw. I have my dad to thank for introducing me to this, he was obsessed with anything war related, and while I would never admit this to him as a teenager, even back then I could appreciate how brilliant this film was.
Saving Private Ryan is a 1998 World War II epic from Steven Spielberg that follows a group of soldiers as they embark on a mission across France to rescue a man who’s 3 brothers have been killed in action. It stars Tom Hanks as Captain Miller as he leads a host of recognisable faces including Vin Diesel (Caparzo), Barry Pepper (Jackson), Tom Sizemore (Horvath), Giovanni Ribisi (Wade), Edward Burns (Reiben) and Jeremy Davies as Upham as they trek across country to find Matt Damon’s Private Ryan.
The main plot is definitely very Hollywood, but the film itself looks and feels like anything but a glamorous Hollywood blockbuster. This is by far the grittiest, darkest and most horrific war film I’ve seen to date. Spielberg does not shy away from displaying the true horror of war, from the blood and gore of the fighting to the physical and psychological effects it had on the soldiers , it’s all here in all of its horrifying glory. One of the most memorable scenes of any war film is the opening sequence of the D-Day landings, that shows a haunting and frightfully bloody side of the war that no other films have managed to capture in such a dark and emotionally draining manner. Even the opening scene in Arlington Cemetery, especially when paired with a moving score from John Williams, is a tearjerker only a few minutes into the 2.5 hour runtime. I don’t know how factually realistic this whole film is, but it’s definitely one of the most compellingly believable films I’ve ever seen, especially the death scenes.
Visually the cinematography helps with the dark and gritty feeling. Everything looks grey and drab, even hazy at times, and this only helps to promote the overall tone of the film. Admittedly there are parts of this now that do look a little dated and there are a few early scenes with a strange out of place camera flare, but considering it was released 23 years ago, it’s aged pretty well and still looks quite good. It’s helped by a truly stellar cast lead by the ever brilliant Tom Hanks, who’s turn as Captain Miller is hauntingly good. The fact that he didn’t win the Oscar for his performance is criminal. Him alongside the rest of the cast, including memorably brash Brooklynite Reiben (Burns) and God-fearing elite sniper Jackson (Pepper), completely embody the camaraderie, friendship and sometimes hostility shown by the group of men perfectly. My only slight criticism of this film is that after growing to know and like these men over the course of the film, there is a question mark over some of their fates at the end which is a tiny bit disappointing.
Saving Private Ryan won 5 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Cinematography, but was nominated for many others including Best Picture, which in my opinion it deserved far more than the film that won in 1999 (Shakespeare in Love), as this is undoubtedly an all time classic war film.
When I think of war films, I immediately think of Saving Private Ryan. This is partly because I shamefully haven’t seen the majority of the older classic war films (but I may have done by the time I reach the end of this list), and also because this is the first war film I ever saw. I have my dad to thank for introducing me to this, he was obsessed with anything war related, and while I would never admit this to him as a teenager, even back then I could appreciate how brilliant this film was.
Saving Private Ryan is a 1998 World War II epic from Steven Spielberg that follows a group of soldiers as they embark on a mission across France to rescue a man who’s 3 brothers have been killed in action. It stars Tom Hanks as Captain Miller as he leads a host of recognisable faces including Vin Diesel (Caparzo), Barry Pepper (Jackson), Tom Sizemore (Horvath), Giovanni Ribisi (Wade), Edward Burns (Reiben) and Jeremy Davies as Upham as they trek across country to find Matt Damon’s Private Ryan.
The main plot is definitely very Hollywood, but the film itself looks and feels like anything but a glamorous Hollywood blockbuster. This is by far the grittiest, darkest and most horrific war film I’ve seen to date. Spielberg does not shy away from displaying the true horror of war, from the blood and gore of the fighting to the physical and psychological effects it had on the soldiers , it’s all here in all of its horrifying glory. One of the most memorable scenes of any war film is the opening sequence of the D-Day landings, that shows a haunting and frightfully bloody side of the war that no other films have managed to capture in such a dark and emotionally draining manner. Even the opening scene in Arlington Cemetery, especially when paired with a moving score from John Williams, is a tearjerker only a few minutes into the 2.5 hour runtime. I don’t know how factually realistic this whole film is, but it’s definitely one of the most compellingly believable films I’ve ever seen, especially the death scenes.
Visually the cinematography helps with the dark and gritty feeling. Everything looks grey and drab, even hazy at times, and this only helps to promote the overall tone of the film. Admittedly there are parts of this now that do look a little dated and there are a few early scenes with a strange out of place camera flare, but considering it was released 23 years ago, it’s aged pretty well and still looks quite good. It’s helped by a truly stellar cast lead by the ever brilliant Tom Hanks, who’s turn as Captain Miller is hauntingly good. The fact that he didn’t win the Oscar for his performance is criminal. Him alongside the rest of the cast, including memorably brash Brooklynite Reiben (Burns) and God-fearing elite sniper Jackson (Pepper), completely embody the camaraderie, friendship and sometimes hostility shown by the group of men perfectly. My only slight criticism of this film is that after growing to know and like these men over the course of the film, there is a question mark over some of their fates at the end which is a tiny bit disappointing.
Saving Private Ryan won 5 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Cinematography, but was nominated for many others including Best Picture, which in my opinion it deserved far more than the film that won in 1999 (Shakespeare in Love), as this is undoubtedly an all time classic war film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
In May 1940, as Germany advanced into France, Allied troops found themselves surrounded at the town of Dunkirk with little time to escape. In the distance, the Germans sought to capture or kill each of the nearly 400,000 men. French and British soldiers began the slow process to evacuate using every naval or civilian ship available. Dunkirk examines the heroism involved by everyone on the land, sea, and air in their attempt to get their countrymen home.
When we discuss, reflect, or are taught about World War II, we often think the turning points of the war as the Battle of the Bulge, Leningrad, Midway, or D-Day. In doing this, we overlook moments like Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan exposes how vital this moment was in determining the fate, not only of the war, but the world in Dunkirk.
It is hard to describe what the film is like just from the visuals. It captures you and surrounds you by making the audience feel as though they are witnessing these events from a third-person perspective, as well as, through the eyes of those involved. The film itself is not limited to just the war or a discussion of the circumstances that led up to the war itself. There are no major battles shown, however, the film demonstrates quite vividly the horrors of war, the confusion, the chaos, the brutality, and the fear that each moment might be your last.
Dunkirk, masterfully tells the story of those involved in the evacuation of those troops that found themselves being pursued by Nazi Germany. Each frame will have audiences fearing for the safety of the men on the screen and hoping that they will somehow make it home despite all indications that their fate is sealed. Nolan gives audiences the opportunity to see the events in a multilayered way so that we can understand all of the moving parts involved in this massive undertaking. It renews the appreciation that many of us have for those who fought in World War II and offers a new sense of appreciation for younger generations who are far removed from those events. Most impressive about the film is its ability to be more historically accurate in displaying the different people who actually were fighting. It is not, like Saving Private Ryan, a film that exaggerates American participation in the war to make it look as though the only people fighting were Americans and Nazis. Dunkirk shows how the French, British, and Belgians, of various colors and backgrounds were fighting well before summer of 1944.
The film also pulls of quite an ambitious task by removing the Nazis from the film. This is not to say that there is no German presence in the film, rather, they minimize the focus on the Nazis in order to keep the focus on those evacuating and those involved in assisting with the efforts. In my viewing, I felt that this strengthened the film in adding to the fear by having a faceless enemy, one that could be lurking around the corner or coming around the corner at any moment. This added to the tension to make audiences feel the fear that so many of these young men must have had as they waited to board their ships to get home.
Dunkirk is impressive, emotional, and full of tension. It raises the bar with respect to how historically-based films should be in the representation of events. It does not rely on one linear story to capture the audience. It is an intelligent and overdue homage to the men and women who did all they could to ensure that these men made it home.
When we discuss, reflect, or are taught about World War II, we often think the turning points of the war as the Battle of the Bulge, Leningrad, Midway, or D-Day. In doing this, we overlook moments like Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan exposes how vital this moment was in determining the fate, not only of the war, but the world in Dunkirk.
It is hard to describe what the film is like just from the visuals. It captures you and surrounds you by making the audience feel as though they are witnessing these events from a third-person perspective, as well as, through the eyes of those involved. The film itself is not limited to just the war or a discussion of the circumstances that led up to the war itself. There are no major battles shown, however, the film demonstrates quite vividly the horrors of war, the confusion, the chaos, the brutality, and the fear that each moment might be your last.
Dunkirk, masterfully tells the story of those involved in the evacuation of those troops that found themselves being pursued by Nazi Germany. Each frame will have audiences fearing for the safety of the men on the screen and hoping that they will somehow make it home despite all indications that their fate is sealed. Nolan gives audiences the opportunity to see the events in a multilayered way so that we can understand all of the moving parts involved in this massive undertaking. It renews the appreciation that many of us have for those who fought in World War II and offers a new sense of appreciation for younger generations who are far removed from those events. Most impressive about the film is its ability to be more historically accurate in displaying the different people who actually were fighting. It is not, like Saving Private Ryan, a film that exaggerates American participation in the war to make it look as though the only people fighting were Americans and Nazis. Dunkirk shows how the French, British, and Belgians, of various colors and backgrounds were fighting well before summer of 1944.
The film also pulls of quite an ambitious task by removing the Nazis from the film. This is not to say that there is no German presence in the film, rather, they minimize the focus on the Nazis in order to keep the focus on those evacuating and those involved in assisting with the efforts. In my viewing, I felt that this strengthened the film in adding to the fear by having a faceless enemy, one that could be lurking around the corner or coming around the corner at any moment. This added to the tension to make audiences feel the fear that so many of these young men must have had as they waited to board their ships to get home.
Dunkirk is impressive, emotional, and full of tension. It raises the bar with respect to how historically-based films should be in the representation of events. It does not rely on one linear story to capture the audience. It is an intelligent and overdue homage to the men and women who did all they could to ensure that these men made it home.