Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Some nightmares you wake up from, wipe the sweat from your brow, and go back to wonderful slumber as though it never occurred. Others follow you in both your sleep and waking hours. For Dan Torrance (Ewan McGregor) the nightmare that began at the Overlook Hotel in Stephen King’s best-selling novel (and movie directed by Stanley Kubrick) The Shining continue to follow him through his childhood years. With the help of a friendly spirit (Carl Lumbly) Dan learns how to contain the malevolent spirits that followed him from his nightmarish experience, but at almost the cost of his sanity. Falling back on his fathers’ previous crutch, Dan drinks and fights his demons away every night, consumed by a different type of spirit to manage the pain and fear that he has been running from.
Dan is about to hit rock bottom when he encounters a man who has certainly suffered with his own demons in the past, who offers him a place to stay, a job, and an escape from the alcohol that held him in his own personal hell for several years. After eight years of sobriety he strikes up a psychic pen-pal friendship with a young girl named Abra Stone (Kyliegh Curran), who shares his powers. His wish to push his “shining” deep down inside him, and not let it come out is interrupted when Abra witnesses a murder of a young boy. Using her gift, she uncovers a group of beings so evil, that their desire for immortality requires them to snuff out the lives of those who share the same special gift as Dan and Abra. Dan and Abra must join forces, and let their lights shine, if they are to defeat this evil and save themselves and others like them in the process.
Doctor Sleep is the long-awaited sequel to The Shining released (on film at least) back in 1980. While the original film was lauded by most and reviled by some in the way that Stanley Kubrick brought the story to life, it serves as the backdrop to this sequel. Blending reshoots of the original film (using the current actors) as flash backs, it provides the necessary background to those who may have never had the opportunity to see the original, and visual reminders to those who have. While artistically the film doesn’t hold a shine to the original, it tells a far more consumable story, with less focus on the imagery and symbolism in each shot then Stanly Kubrick’s masterpiece.
The bond between Ewan McGregor and upcoming star Kyliegh Curran is not only believable but magical. The chemistry that the two share both in separate scenes and together show the tight bond they certainly must have felt on set. The movie is blessed with an entire cast of supporting characters, that bring the believability and professionalism to the big screen. Rebecca Ferguson, as our duos’ primary adversary Rose the Hat, provides an outstanding performance. Surrounded by her fellow shine-pires, Grandpa Flick (Carel Struycken), Snakebite Andi (Emily Alyn Lind) and Crow Daddy (Zahn McClarnon) to name just a few, the group reminds me of The Lost Boys in their cunning and hunger.
Doctor Sleep is not a scary movie, at least not when it’s put beside The Shining. While it has scary moments, this is a movie about putting aside your fear and challenging evil, regardless of the cost. Dan must put the past behind him and dig deep within himself to find his purpose and with this purpose will come a lot of loss, but acceptance at the same time. The movie begins a little slow and picks up midway through. While the battle against many of the shine-pires may feel a little hollow at first, it’s nothing to what will compare with the ultimate climax between good and evil.
Fans of the Stanley Kubrick film will see lots of familiar locations and costumes throughout the two-and-a-half-hour show. Even the re-created scenes share the same visual imagery and spectacle, just as if it was simply a re-master. I actually liked that they reshot the pivotal scenes and characters, while no one can perfectly mimic the master of Jack Nicholson, I felt that Henry Thomas did an amazing job in his portrayal of the young Jack Torrance. Alex Essoe portrayed an outstanding Wendy Torrance, a role that was masterfully played by Shelley Duvall back in the day.
With the magnitude of Stephen King movies (and series) being released in the recent years, it could easily feel as if we have all been teleported back to the 80’s. There have been some homeruns in recent years (and some foul balls), but Doctor Sleep easily ranks up there as one of the better of the Stephen King movies to be released in recent memory. While the movie is much more action-oriented and doesn’t deliver on the sheer terror of the original, it suits the story, and does a commendable way of bringing closure to some of Stephen King’s more notable characters. Both fans and non-fans of the original will find a lot to like, and for those looking for more story (and less artistry) will be extremely pleased with the way director Mike Flanagan (The Haunting of Hill House series / Hush) brings this rendition to the screen. So, let your light shine and go see Doctor Sleep.
Dan is about to hit rock bottom when he encounters a man who has certainly suffered with his own demons in the past, who offers him a place to stay, a job, and an escape from the alcohol that held him in his own personal hell for several years. After eight years of sobriety he strikes up a psychic pen-pal friendship with a young girl named Abra Stone (Kyliegh Curran), who shares his powers. His wish to push his “shining” deep down inside him, and not let it come out is interrupted when Abra witnesses a murder of a young boy. Using her gift, she uncovers a group of beings so evil, that their desire for immortality requires them to snuff out the lives of those who share the same special gift as Dan and Abra. Dan and Abra must join forces, and let their lights shine, if they are to defeat this evil and save themselves and others like them in the process.
Doctor Sleep is the long-awaited sequel to The Shining released (on film at least) back in 1980. While the original film was lauded by most and reviled by some in the way that Stanley Kubrick brought the story to life, it serves as the backdrop to this sequel. Blending reshoots of the original film (using the current actors) as flash backs, it provides the necessary background to those who may have never had the opportunity to see the original, and visual reminders to those who have. While artistically the film doesn’t hold a shine to the original, it tells a far more consumable story, with less focus on the imagery and symbolism in each shot then Stanly Kubrick’s masterpiece.
The bond between Ewan McGregor and upcoming star Kyliegh Curran is not only believable but magical. The chemistry that the two share both in separate scenes and together show the tight bond they certainly must have felt on set. The movie is blessed with an entire cast of supporting characters, that bring the believability and professionalism to the big screen. Rebecca Ferguson, as our duos’ primary adversary Rose the Hat, provides an outstanding performance. Surrounded by her fellow shine-pires, Grandpa Flick (Carel Struycken), Snakebite Andi (Emily Alyn Lind) and Crow Daddy (Zahn McClarnon) to name just a few, the group reminds me of The Lost Boys in their cunning and hunger.
Doctor Sleep is not a scary movie, at least not when it’s put beside The Shining. While it has scary moments, this is a movie about putting aside your fear and challenging evil, regardless of the cost. Dan must put the past behind him and dig deep within himself to find his purpose and with this purpose will come a lot of loss, but acceptance at the same time. The movie begins a little slow and picks up midway through. While the battle against many of the shine-pires may feel a little hollow at first, it’s nothing to what will compare with the ultimate climax between good and evil.
Fans of the Stanley Kubrick film will see lots of familiar locations and costumes throughout the two-and-a-half-hour show. Even the re-created scenes share the same visual imagery and spectacle, just as if it was simply a re-master. I actually liked that they reshot the pivotal scenes and characters, while no one can perfectly mimic the master of Jack Nicholson, I felt that Henry Thomas did an amazing job in his portrayal of the young Jack Torrance. Alex Essoe portrayed an outstanding Wendy Torrance, a role that was masterfully played by Shelley Duvall back in the day.
With the magnitude of Stephen King movies (and series) being released in the recent years, it could easily feel as if we have all been teleported back to the 80’s. There have been some homeruns in recent years (and some foul balls), but Doctor Sleep easily ranks up there as one of the better of the Stephen King movies to be released in recent memory. While the movie is much more action-oriented and doesn’t deliver on the sheer terror of the original, it suits the story, and does a commendable way of bringing closure to some of Stephen King’s more notable characters. Both fans and non-fans of the original will find a lot to like, and for those looking for more story (and less artistry) will be extremely pleased with the way director Mike Flanagan (The Haunting of Hill House series / Hush) brings this rendition to the screen. So, let your light shine and go see Doctor Sleep.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Princess of Thorns in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<i>Princess of Thorns</i> isn't even a retelling – it's <b>just a fairy tale (pun may be intended) where the original characters are quite dead (poisoned, murdered, suicidal, etc.) and the spawn of Aurora 1.0 and Stephen is cursed in exchange for her fairy blessings.</b>
That particular spawn, who I'm calling Aurora 2.0 (simply because <i>THE</i> Sleeping Beauty was born as Aurora but Stacey Jay calls her Rose), apparently has a brother who gets captured by the ogre queen and she decides to pose as said brother to raise an army to overthrow the ogre queen. Early on in her journey – the beginning of the book, in actuality – Aurora meets Prince Niklaas, son of the immortal king of Kanvasola and wait for it...
Also cursed.
I won't complain too much about <i>Princess of Thorns</i> – it's a neat idea and there's really not much you can do with a retelling of a princess who sleeps a hundred years and gets woken up by a kiss from a prince who goes through thorns and fights a green-fire breathing dragon witch known as Maleficent. I pretty much applaud authors who toy around with Sleeping Beauty – it's interesting to see what comes out of it.
But <b>the book is <i>sooo</i> confusing</b>. From the beginning, Jay quite literally throws us in a world where Aurora is aware of what's going on around her, but <b>I have no clue what's going on.</b> Aurora thinks she's seeing a hottie who she thinks is a "Golden God" – great! But what in the world is going on? All I know is she's been with the fey for ten years and she may or may not be with them right at that time, and whatever was going on for fifteen pages certainly doesn't sound very fey-like. I also know that her mother, the original Sleeping Beauty, is dead.
There were also <b>a few things that just seemed really ridiculous.</b>
The <b>names are just not as creative</b> as Stacey Jay might be aiming them to be. Niklaas, Haanah, Ekeeta, and the name that almost made me bawl in laughter? Nippa. It's almost as though <b>in an effort to "foreignize" the names, Jay either "drawls" out a letter or it justs sounds like another word in the English language (sometimes, it's not even pleasant).</b> In that case, I'll be Sofeeyah.
<b>The entire concept of Aurora dressing up as her brother without anyone being aware was also a bit suspicious.</b> Aurora slips up A LOT in front of Niklaas throughout the journey, and <b>I'm a bit peeved he doesn't even question it THE ENTIRE TIME.</b> If her brother were younger than fourteen and disguised Aurora slipped up a few times, then maybe it would have worked better. But Aurora's captured brother is <i>fourteen</i> – I doubt fourteen-year-old boys sound like high-pitched girls. As much as I applaud Aurora for having the guts to venture out in the world on her own to take down an ogre queen, <b>I just don't buy her manliness.</b>
In all honesty, though, <b>Aurora as a Jor was a lot better than Aurora as a girl</b> – she's desperate as Niklaas gets closer to his eighteenth birthday. It's quite literally, "Dude, come on! Marry me already!" And Niklaas is all mopey. "All is lost. No princess loves me, so dear God and all that is Holy, END THIS AND TURN ME INTO A SWAN ALREADY SO I CAN SWAN THE REST OF MY LIFE AWAY WITH MY SWANNING BROS."
Aurora's approaching meeting with the ogre queen seemed <b>really weird, abrupt, and cheesy</b> – I felt like I just wrote a story in sixth grade where the bad guy goes all, "Oh, I'm so sorry! Let me just accept my punishment and go to flaming Hell." while being completely solemn. And obviously, the story becomes all happily ever after.
The entire explanation makes sense, but <b>the execution just seemed weird and quick</b> and somewhere in the process, the author realized, "Oh, wait. This is going on 400 hundred pages. I better wrap this up and wrap it up quickly, or I'll end up boring the crap out of my readers if I throw in deception and go on 600 or more pages!"
Disclaimer: I'm not making fun of the author. I'm quite literally saying I felt as though I was in sixth grade, writing a story with an actual limited number of pages and I <i>had</i> to wrap it up, so I did it abruptly. That was actually a true story. I did get a decent grade, so I must have done something right, right?
Also, at the time of writing this review, I was feeling more sarcastic than usual (though Lupe and Rundus would probably say I'm sarcastic 24/7). <b><i>Princess of Thorns</i> had a decent idea, but there were quite a bit of bumps and mucho ridiculousness throughout that made the story fall rather than burst out feathers and fly (see what I did there?).</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-princess-of-thorns-by-stacey-jay/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
That particular spawn, who I'm calling Aurora 2.0 (simply because <i>THE</i> Sleeping Beauty was born as Aurora but Stacey Jay calls her Rose), apparently has a brother who gets captured by the ogre queen and she decides to pose as said brother to raise an army to overthrow the ogre queen. Early on in her journey – the beginning of the book, in actuality – Aurora meets Prince Niklaas, son of the immortal king of Kanvasola and wait for it...
Also cursed.
I won't complain too much about <i>Princess of Thorns</i> – it's a neat idea and there's really not much you can do with a retelling of a princess who sleeps a hundred years and gets woken up by a kiss from a prince who goes through thorns and fights a green-fire breathing dragon witch known as Maleficent. I pretty much applaud authors who toy around with Sleeping Beauty – it's interesting to see what comes out of it.
But <b>the book is <i>sooo</i> confusing</b>. From the beginning, Jay quite literally throws us in a world where Aurora is aware of what's going on around her, but <b>I have no clue what's going on.</b> Aurora thinks she's seeing a hottie who she thinks is a "Golden God" – great! But what in the world is going on? All I know is she's been with the fey for ten years and she may or may not be with them right at that time, and whatever was going on for fifteen pages certainly doesn't sound very fey-like. I also know that her mother, the original Sleeping Beauty, is dead.
There were also <b>a few things that just seemed really ridiculous.</b>
The <b>names are just not as creative</b> as Stacey Jay might be aiming them to be. Niklaas, Haanah, Ekeeta, and the name that almost made me bawl in laughter? Nippa. It's almost as though <b>in an effort to "foreignize" the names, Jay either "drawls" out a letter or it justs sounds like another word in the English language (sometimes, it's not even pleasant).</b> In that case, I'll be Sofeeyah.
<b>The entire concept of Aurora dressing up as her brother without anyone being aware was also a bit suspicious.</b> Aurora slips up A LOT in front of Niklaas throughout the journey, and <b>I'm a bit peeved he doesn't even question it THE ENTIRE TIME.</b> If her brother were younger than fourteen and disguised Aurora slipped up a few times, then maybe it would have worked better. But Aurora's captured brother is <i>fourteen</i> – I doubt fourteen-year-old boys sound like high-pitched girls. As much as I applaud Aurora for having the guts to venture out in the world on her own to take down an ogre queen, <b>I just don't buy her manliness.</b>
In all honesty, though, <b>Aurora as a Jor was a lot better than Aurora as a girl</b> – she's desperate as Niklaas gets closer to his eighteenth birthday. It's quite literally, "Dude, come on! Marry me already!" And Niklaas is all mopey. "All is lost. No princess loves me, so dear God and all that is Holy, END THIS AND TURN ME INTO A SWAN ALREADY SO I CAN SWAN THE REST OF MY LIFE AWAY WITH MY SWANNING BROS."
Aurora's approaching meeting with the ogre queen seemed <b>really weird, abrupt, and cheesy</b> – I felt like I just wrote a story in sixth grade where the bad guy goes all, "Oh, I'm so sorry! Let me just accept my punishment and go to flaming Hell." while being completely solemn. And obviously, the story becomes all happily ever after.
The entire explanation makes sense, but <b>the execution just seemed weird and quick</b> and somewhere in the process, the author realized, "Oh, wait. This is going on 400 hundred pages. I better wrap this up and wrap it up quickly, or I'll end up boring the crap out of my readers if I throw in deception and go on 600 or more pages!"
Disclaimer: I'm not making fun of the author. I'm quite literally saying I felt as though I was in sixth grade, writing a story with an actual limited number of pages and I <i>had</i> to wrap it up, so I did it abruptly. That was actually a true story. I did get a decent grade, so I must have done something right, right?
Also, at the time of writing this review, I was feeling more sarcastic than usual (though Lupe and Rundus would probably say I'm sarcastic 24/7). <b><i>Princess of Thorns</i> had a decent idea, but there were quite a bit of bumps and mucho ridiculousness throughout that made the story fall rather than burst out feathers and fly (see what I did there?).</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-princess-of-thorns-by-stacey-jay/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Daughter of Deep Silence in Books
Jan 23, 2020
You know what happens when you read a little over a hundred pages and rage for two full pages in a reading notebook?
You don't continue the book. You mark it as a DNF because you don't want to spend approximately eight pages raging and raging over a four hundred page book when you can read another book.
As you can see, I did exactly that.
But <b>never, <i>never</i> have I ever wanted to throw a book out the window <i>SO BADLY</i></b> as I want to do with <i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i>. This is <b>an absolute, horrifying mess disguised as a book with a gorgeous cover and an absolutely beautiful interior layout.</b> <i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i> is really about <b>a girl who is so hell-bent on revenge, she's become obsessed and obviously needs to get a move on with her life.</b>
It's obvious from early on in the book. <b>I don't actually know much about Frances as a person</b> from the fourth of the book I read. <b>I know her plans and what happened on the <i>Persephone</i></b> with the flashbacks here and there, but I don't know Frances. The book screams <i>revenge</i>. It also screams <i>obsessed</i>, because <b>what else could it be if you're keeping a bleeping notebook on each of the family members filled with little details among details about each member?</b>
<blockquote>Over the past four years I've become an expert on Grey. An expert on everyone in the Wells family. I have the same kind of notebook on each one of them.</blockquote>
But <i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i> isn't just that. It's a carbon copy. <b>An absolute carbon copy of <i>Revenge</i></b>, and I mean <i>ABSOLUTE</i>. It's worse than <i><a title="Unbreakable by Kami Garcia" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-audiobook-review-unbreakable-by-kami-garcia/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Unbreakable</a></i> and <i>Supernatural</i> or <i>The Hunger Games</i> and <i><a title="The Testing by Joelle Charbonneau" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-testing-by-joelle-charbonneau/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Testing</a></i> and other dystopian novels put together, because there's actually <i>some</i> difference. <a title="The Moon Dwellers by David Estes" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-moon-dwellers-by-david-estes/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">There's a chance that I'll actually like the book.</a> (It's happened. I PROMISE.)
<i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i>, on the other hand? <b>I don't even know where <i>Revenge</i> ends and the book actually begins</b> I can distinguish nary a difference, and I'm completely disappointed.
<b>There's revenge obviously.</b> There's a reason <i>behind</i> both Frances' and Emily's vengeance, and <b>this whole revenge idea didn't bother me at all.</b> It's only just one similarity right? <b>This could have gone on an entirely different route from early on</b> and I wouldn't have complained about a single thing. Maybe not a single thing, but there would be less rage. But I should have seen the signs from the moment I picked up the book.
<blockquote>*peruses new books shelves, sees book*
Hey, didn't I want to read this? *picks up book and reads synopsis again*
Sounds like Revenge. I'll come back and think about it. *looks at other books and chooses two more*
Screw it. Let's give this a whirl. If I don't like it, I've got plenty of papery ammunition.</blockquote>
<b>There's a disguise involved.</b> It's revealed in a later season View Spoiler »Emily is actually disguised as someone else. Frances is asked by her best friend's father to change her identity to Libby O'Martin so she can be protected and be able to find a way to exploit the truth behind the fate of <i>Persephone</i>.
<blockquote>"It's the only way to keep you sage." He pushes the ring toward me. "It's the only way to figure out who did this and make them pay."</blockquote>
<b>There's a politically powerful family.</b> Both are senators, both are planning on running for president, both are famous, both have a mansion with French doors (at least, I'm pretty sure <i>Revenge</i> had the French doors). And both have a son named...
...wait for it...
Greyson. *whistles* Imagine that! I mean, so much is similar, and the son had to be named the <i>exact same name as the one in the show I'm comparing this to?</i> You have got to be seriously kidding me. View Spoiler »I started expecting Ryan to actually throw in a secret son or something.
I just... can't. Someone pick up my horrified self off the floor. I'll wake up later. Until then, Ella or Lupe can take over.
<b><i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i> is <i>Revenge</i> down to the very basic formula.</b> Enough said.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-daughter-of-deep-silence-by-carrie-ryan/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
You don't continue the book. You mark it as a DNF because you don't want to spend approximately eight pages raging and raging over a four hundred page book when you can read another book.
As you can see, I did exactly that.
But <b>never, <i>never</i> have I ever wanted to throw a book out the window <i>SO BADLY</i></b> as I want to do with <i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i>. This is <b>an absolute, horrifying mess disguised as a book with a gorgeous cover and an absolutely beautiful interior layout.</b> <i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i> is really about <b>a girl who is so hell-bent on revenge, she's become obsessed and obviously needs to get a move on with her life.</b>
It's obvious from early on in the book. <b>I don't actually know much about Frances as a person</b> from the fourth of the book I read. <b>I know her plans and what happened on the <i>Persephone</i></b> with the flashbacks here and there, but I don't know Frances. The book screams <i>revenge</i>. It also screams <i>obsessed</i>, because <b>what else could it be if you're keeping a bleeping notebook on each of the family members filled with little details among details about each member?</b>
<blockquote>Over the past four years I've become an expert on Grey. An expert on everyone in the Wells family. I have the same kind of notebook on each one of them.</blockquote>
But <i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i> isn't just that. It's a carbon copy. <b>An absolute carbon copy of <i>Revenge</i></b>, and I mean <i>ABSOLUTE</i>. It's worse than <i><a title="Unbreakable by Kami Garcia" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-audiobook-review-unbreakable-by-kami-garcia/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Unbreakable</a></i> and <i>Supernatural</i> or <i>The Hunger Games</i> and <i><a title="The Testing by Joelle Charbonneau" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-testing-by-joelle-charbonneau/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Testing</a></i> and other dystopian novels put together, because there's actually <i>some</i> difference. <a title="The Moon Dwellers by David Estes" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-moon-dwellers-by-david-estes/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">There's a chance that I'll actually like the book.</a> (It's happened. I PROMISE.)
<i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i>, on the other hand? <b>I don't even know where <i>Revenge</i> ends and the book actually begins</b> I can distinguish nary a difference, and I'm completely disappointed.
<b>There's revenge obviously.</b> There's a reason <i>behind</i> both Frances' and Emily's vengeance, and <b>this whole revenge idea didn't bother me at all.</b> It's only just one similarity right? <b>This could have gone on an entirely different route from early on</b> and I wouldn't have complained about a single thing. Maybe not a single thing, but there would be less rage. But I should have seen the signs from the moment I picked up the book.
<blockquote>*peruses new books shelves, sees book*
Hey, didn't I want to read this? *picks up book and reads synopsis again*
Sounds like Revenge. I'll come back and think about it. *looks at other books and chooses two more*
Screw it. Let's give this a whirl. If I don't like it, I've got plenty of papery ammunition.</blockquote>
<b>There's a disguise involved.</b> It's revealed in a later season View Spoiler »Emily is actually disguised as someone else. Frances is asked by her best friend's father to change her identity to Libby O'Martin so she can be protected and be able to find a way to exploit the truth behind the fate of <i>Persephone</i>.
<blockquote>"It's the only way to keep you sage." He pushes the ring toward me. "It's the only way to figure out who did this and make them pay."</blockquote>
<b>There's a politically powerful family.</b> Both are senators, both are planning on running for president, both are famous, both have a mansion with French doors (at least, I'm pretty sure <i>Revenge</i> had the French doors). And both have a son named...
...wait for it...
Greyson. *whistles* Imagine that! I mean, so much is similar, and the son had to be named the <i>exact same name as the one in the show I'm comparing this to?</i> You have got to be seriously kidding me. View Spoiler »I started expecting Ryan to actually throw in a secret son or something.
I just... can't. Someone pick up my horrified self off the floor. I'll wake up later. Until then, Ella or Lupe can take over.
<b><i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i> is <i>Revenge</i> down to the very basic formula.</b> Enough said.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-daughter-of-deep-silence-by-carrie-ryan/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<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.”
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Other Mrs. in Books
Apr 4, 2020
Mental illness done correctly (1 more)
Addictive
Mental illness.
I've read a lot of horror books that cover this subject, watched horror movies covering this subject, listened to music covering this subject, but none of them have covered mental illness as well and correctly as Mary Kubica's "The Other Mrs.."
So, with that said, if you have any type of PTSD, this book may be hard for you to read. Otherwise, this novel is very addicting, filled with so many twists and turns that you won't be able to set it down for long. For me, someone who deals with C-PTSD, 'The Other Mrs.' by Mary Kubica has been a heartache to read, but also very fulfilling to finish.
Kubica is known for her best-selling novel 'the Good Girl' - - - a thriller following a mother and a detective in search of the the former's missing daughter that leads them down a twisted tale of family secrets. From highly acclaimed critics, 'the Other Mrs.' has out-done 'the Good Girl' as Kubica's best novel so far. Kubica sticks with her psychological thriller writing that she is known for in this newest novel. She keeps the reader guessing at what will happen next, and she plays out mental illnesses in a way that most who suffer can relate while winding in a mystery well enough that the reader won't be able to guess everything before the ending.
I can't give such a heavy review on this book because, to do so, would give away a lot of the ending, so I'll stick to talking about noteworthy characters that make up the novel. The main character is a woman named Sadie, whose family is being uprooted from Chicago and moved to a small island in Maine after her husband's sister dies, which leaves them with not only a house in the will, but a sixteen-year-old niece named Imogen.
Sadie is already a mother of two sons, both younger than sixteen, when she suddenly finds herself in-charge of the stereo-typical edgy teenager, Imogen. Sadie describes her the first time she sees Imogen: " But there she stands, a morose figure dressed in black. Black jeans, a black shirt, bare feet. Her hair is black, long with bangs that slant sideways across her face. Her eyes are outlined in a thick slash of black eyeliner. Everything black, aside from the white lettering on her shirt, which reads, I want to die. The septum of her nose is pierced. Her skin, in contrast to everything else, is white, pallid, ghostlike. She's thin. "
Early one morning when Sadie is heading off to work, she finds a word spelled on her car window. The word reads: "Die." Sadie, as most readers, quickly assumes that Imogen is responsibly for this, as she tries to explain: "I've tried to be understanding because of how awful the situation must be for her. Her life has been upended. She lost her mother and now must share her home with people she doesn't know. But that doesn't justify threatening me. Because Imogen doesn't mince words. She means just what she said. She wants me to die."
The next character that makes up a big part of this story is a confident, self-centered woman, whose name is Camille,and is also the 'other woman' in this story. Camille is a woman who gets what and who she wants, and won't let anyone get in her way, including Sadie, whose husband is someone Camille wants. I can't go much into the things that Camille's character does because it would give away a lot of the surprises in this novel - - - I can say though that there is murder and mystery throughout; the book will leave most readers guessing until the very end.
One other character who deserves mentioning is a little girl- - - with the nickname 'Mouse' - - - who finds herself suddenly dealing with a horrific stepmother, who abuses her physically and mentally unbeknownst to Mouse's father. One time, in which Mouse shows how smart she is to her the stepmother while being in front of her father (who Mouse likes to call 'Fake Mom'), later that night, when Mouse's father isn't looking, Fake Mom lets Mouse know how she felt about that:
" But later that night, when he father wasn't looking, Fake Mom got down into Mouse's face and told her if she ever made her look stupid again in front of her father, there would be hell to pay. Fake Mom's face got all red. She bared her teeth like a dog does when it's mad. A vein stuck out of her forehead. It throbbed. Fake Mom spit when she spoke, like she was so mad she couldn't stop herself from spitting. Like she was spitting mad. She spit on Mouse's face but Mouse didn't dare raise a hand to wipe it away."
Mental and physical abuse make up all that The Other Mrs. is about. So far, this is the best story I have read in a long time. My only problem with it is it's written like a YA novel, where it seems Kubica tried to keep that from happening by throwing in some heavy syllable words to make it more fitting for adults. But, luckily, she left out most of the wishy-washy elements that make up YA novels, so I believe most adults will enjoy this. I highly recommend this book to people who love murder mysteries!
I've read a lot of horror books that cover this subject, watched horror movies covering this subject, listened to music covering this subject, but none of them have covered mental illness as well and correctly as Mary Kubica's "The Other Mrs.."
So, with that said, if you have any type of PTSD, this book may be hard for you to read. Otherwise, this novel is very addicting, filled with so many twists and turns that you won't be able to set it down for long. For me, someone who deals with C-PTSD, 'The Other Mrs.' by Mary Kubica has been a heartache to read, but also very fulfilling to finish.
Kubica is known for her best-selling novel 'the Good Girl' - - - a thriller following a mother and a detective in search of the the former's missing daughter that leads them down a twisted tale of family secrets. From highly acclaimed critics, 'the Other Mrs.' has out-done 'the Good Girl' as Kubica's best novel so far. Kubica sticks with her psychological thriller writing that she is known for in this newest novel. She keeps the reader guessing at what will happen next, and she plays out mental illnesses in a way that most who suffer can relate while winding in a mystery well enough that the reader won't be able to guess everything before the ending.
I can't give such a heavy review on this book because, to do so, would give away a lot of the ending, so I'll stick to talking about noteworthy characters that make up the novel. The main character is a woman named Sadie, whose family is being uprooted from Chicago and moved to a small island in Maine after her husband's sister dies, which leaves them with not only a house in the will, but a sixteen-year-old niece named Imogen.
Sadie is already a mother of two sons, both younger than sixteen, when she suddenly finds herself in-charge of the stereo-typical edgy teenager, Imogen. Sadie describes her the first time she sees Imogen: " But there she stands, a morose figure dressed in black. Black jeans, a black shirt, bare feet. Her hair is black, long with bangs that slant sideways across her face. Her eyes are outlined in a thick slash of black eyeliner. Everything black, aside from the white lettering on her shirt, which reads, I want to die. The septum of her nose is pierced. Her skin, in contrast to everything else, is white, pallid, ghostlike. She's thin. "
Early one morning when Sadie is heading off to work, she finds a word spelled on her car window. The word reads: "Die." Sadie, as most readers, quickly assumes that Imogen is responsibly for this, as she tries to explain: "I've tried to be understanding because of how awful the situation must be for her. Her life has been upended. She lost her mother and now must share her home with people she doesn't know. But that doesn't justify threatening me. Because Imogen doesn't mince words. She means just what she said. She wants me to die."
The next character that makes up a big part of this story is a confident, self-centered woman, whose name is Camille,and is also the 'other woman' in this story. Camille is a woman who gets what and who she wants, and won't let anyone get in her way, including Sadie, whose husband is someone Camille wants. I can't go much into the things that Camille's character does because it would give away a lot of the surprises in this novel - - - I can say though that there is murder and mystery throughout; the book will leave most readers guessing until the very end.
One other character who deserves mentioning is a little girl- - - with the nickname 'Mouse' - - - who finds herself suddenly dealing with a horrific stepmother, who abuses her physically and mentally unbeknownst to Mouse's father. One time, in which Mouse shows how smart she is to her the stepmother while being in front of her father (who Mouse likes to call 'Fake Mom'), later that night, when Mouse's father isn't looking, Fake Mom lets Mouse know how she felt about that:
" But later that night, when he father wasn't looking, Fake Mom got down into Mouse's face and told her if she ever made her look stupid again in front of her father, there would be hell to pay. Fake Mom's face got all red. She bared her teeth like a dog does when it's mad. A vein stuck out of her forehead. It throbbed. Fake Mom spit when she spoke, like she was so mad she couldn't stop herself from spitting. Like she was spitting mad. She spit on Mouse's face but Mouse didn't dare raise a hand to wipe it away."
Mental and physical abuse make up all that The Other Mrs. is about. So far, this is the best story I have read in a long time. My only problem with it is it's written like a YA novel, where it seems Kubica tried to keep that from happening by throwing in some heavy syllable words to make it more fitting for adults. But, luckily, she left out most of the wishy-washy elements that make up YA novels, so I believe most adults will enjoy this. I highly recommend this book to people who love murder mysteries!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Before you read this review of Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, I just want you to know that I can’t stand this franchise. I gave up keeping up with them after Furious 7 and felt like the Fast & Furious franchise peaked/was tolerable around Fast Five and never really went anywhere worthwhile before or since. I have not seen all the films and really only seemed to watch every other entry, but whether you’re in a heist or a drag race that lethal dose of masculinity being projectile vomited all over you by an entire cast (women included) for two hours straight is dull and tiresome. In fact, just call this franchise “Dull & Tiresome” from here on out and I doubt anyone would notice. It’s even got “tire” in there for car…stuff.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
Ari Augustine (10 KP) rated Crave (Crave, #1) in Books
May 4, 2020
I am super torn about CRAVE by Tracy Wolff.
First off, the world is kind of amazing. I did love the Hogwarts-Vampire Academy-Narnia-in-Alaska vibes I was getting from the setting. It was beautiful, secluded, and totally magical. Grace is hilarious most of the time, filled with snark and near corny knock knock jokes, but I also enjoyed how she called characters out on their crap. She wasn't always a reckless mess, which was nice, and I readily felt for her grief over the death of her parents. From the beginning, I was there for her pain, her panic attacks, her bravery, her wit, and this new adventure before her. Second to Grace is Jaxon, who I adored in so many ways. Perfection and arrogance aside, he's totally a broody vampire, but this isn't the ONLY side to his character we get, and unlike so many other characters we could compare him to, he does change throughout the course of the book. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that maybe Jaxon, not Grace, is the main lead of this story. They had amazing chemistry, sexy banter, and I deeply enjoyed the tug o' war between them.
Okay. Now for the....not so great. For one, while the setting is so magical and new, we don't really get to explore it much. Yes, we get the AMAZING library filled with witches, unusual tomes, and gargoyles, but I would have loved to hear more about the classes, the different cliques, the way this new place functioned. Unfortunately, because Grace was left out of the loop for pretty much the whole book, we were, too. So we end up not really getting to explore this new place much and that really sucked. This brings us to a second thing I struggled with: Grace.
While I absolutely adored her character, I also kind of wanted to smack her and scream "OPEN YOUR EYES". Even with Macy (her cousin) half spelling it out and with all the impossibilities going on (like students standing outside in below 0 weather without jackets), Grace just sort of files it away as odd, but shrugs. Meh. So that guy wanted to murder me? Meh. So these beads shock everyone but me? Meh. So I fell from a tree and somehow this hot guy caught me midair? Double meh. The list goes on. This went on for the ENTIRE BOOK. And while it was all painfully obvious to us, it sailed over her head like an invisible wind. This really bothered me. Just like the instalove with Jaxon bothered me. Look, I believe in instant attraction. I know a hottie when I see one and, yeah, there's always that little phase of infatuation and attraction, but this started intense and just sort of ended with love bombs. The chemistry, as I said before, was amazing, but I wished we could have had more to go on. It bothered me that Grace was constantly throwing herself at Jaxon, forcing herself on him and forcing him to open on. She also made so many assumptions about Jaxon and I was waiting for her rationale, which never really came. It's like meeting a feral dog in the tundra and believing it wont harm you because it's one of God's creatures or something. She totally idolized him, and I think that, more than anything, kept preventing me from fully loving her as a character.
Odd things I don't know how to feel about: I can totally see where people here are comparing it to Twilight. It pretty much follows the same Vampire Romance formula. Human girl meets broody vampire boy who has a dark past, a set of fangs, and, of course, many enemies. The girl almost always sacrifices herself for love and that happens here, too. I will argue that these characters had WAY MORE personality than Bella and Edward, though. In fact, I FUCKING LOVES all the scenes where Grace handed Jaxon his ass. In fact, this is pretty much why I was unable to put the book down despite all the issues I had with it later. What struck me, though, was I couldn't shake the feeling that the book was either laughing at Twilight (by being a better version of it) or if it was laughing at itself....as if Twilight were the inside joke. This was actually the most entertaining part of the book, and I was unable to figure out if this was meant to be comedic or if I was just reading it that way. Does this make sense? There were so many Twilight references and at one point, Grace event comments to herself about how she wasn't going to be like those female heroines in YA fantasy novels. I don't know. I read this alongside a friend who also felt like the book wasn't taking itself seriously, but neither of us could tell if this was deliberate or not.
Overall, it was a light and entertaining read. Was it perfect? No. Is it funny? Hell yes. Lots of delicious fangy hotness? Um...YEAH. And despite all the problems I had with it, it was still a fun book to setting into during midterms week.
First off, the world is kind of amazing. I did love the Hogwarts-Vampire Academy-Narnia-in-Alaska vibes I was getting from the setting. It was beautiful, secluded, and totally magical. Grace is hilarious most of the time, filled with snark and near corny knock knock jokes, but I also enjoyed how she called characters out on their crap. She wasn't always a reckless mess, which was nice, and I readily felt for her grief over the death of her parents. From the beginning, I was there for her pain, her panic attacks, her bravery, her wit, and this new adventure before her. Second to Grace is Jaxon, who I adored in so many ways. Perfection and arrogance aside, he's totally a broody vampire, but this isn't the ONLY side to his character we get, and unlike so many other characters we could compare him to, he does change throughout the course of the book. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that maybe Jaxon, not Grace, is the main lead of this story. They had amazing chemistry, sexy banter, and I deeply enjoyed the tug o' war between them.
Okay. Now for the....not so great. For one, while the setting is so magical and new, we don't really get to explore it much. Yes, we get the AMAZING library filled with witches, unusual tomes, and gargoyles, but I would have loved to hear more about the classes, the different cliques, the way this new place functioned. Unfortunately, because Grace was left out of the loop for pretty much the whole book, we were, too. So we end up not really getting to explore this new place much and that really sucked. This brings us to a second thing I struggled with: Grace.
While I absolutely adored her character, I also kind of wanted to smack her and scream "OPEN YOUR EYES". Even with Macy (her cousin) half spelling it out and with all the impossibilities going on (like students standing outside in below 0 weather without jackets), Grace just sort of files it away as odd, but shrugs. Meh. So that guy wanted to murder me? Meh. So these beads shock everyone but me? Meh. So I fell from a tree and somehow this hot guy caught me midair? Double meh. The list goes on. This went on for the ENTIRE BOOK. And while it was all painfully obvious to us, it sailed over her head like an invisible wind. This really bothered me. Just like the instalove with Jaxon bothered me. Look, I believe in instant attraction. I know a hottie when I see one and, yeah, there's always that little phase of infatuation and attraction, but this started intense and just sort of ended with love bombs. The chemistry, as I said before, was amazing, but I wished we could have had more to go on. It bothered me that Grace was constantly throwing herself at Jaxon, forcing herself on him and forcing him to open on. She also made so many assumptions about Jaxon and I was waiting for her rationale, which never really came. It's like meeting a feral dog in the tundra and believing it wont harm you because it's one of God's creatures or something. She totally idolized him, and I think that, more than anything, kept preventing me from fully loving her as a character.
Odd things I don't know how to feel about: I can totally see where people here are comparing it to Twilight. It pretty much follows the same Vampire Romance formula. Human girl meets broody vampire boy who has a dark past, a set of fangs, and, of course, many enemies. The girl almost always sacrifices herself for love and that happens here, too. I will argue that these characters had WAY MORE personality than Bella and Edward, though. In fact, I FUCKING LOVES all the scenes where Grace handed Jaxon his ass. In fact, this is pretty much why I was unable to put the book down despite all the issues I had with it later. What struck me, though, was I couldn't shake the feeling that the book was either laughing at Twilight (by being a better version of it) or if it was laughing at itself....as if Twilight were the inside joke. This was actually the most entertaining part of the book, and I was unable to figure out if this was meant to be comedic or if I was just reading it that way. Does this make sense? There were so many Twilight references and at one point, Grace event comments to herself about how she wasn't going to be like those female heroines in YA fantasy novels. I don't know. I read this alongside a friend who also felt like the book wasn't taking itself seriously, but neither of us could tell if this was deliberate or not.
Overall, it was a light and entertaining read. Was it perfect? No. Is it funny? Hell yes. Lots of delicious fangy hotness? Um...YEAH. And despite all the problems I had with it, it was still a fun book to setting into during midterms week.