Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated My Sister's Keeper in Books
Dec 7, 2018
“If you use one of your children to save the life of another, are you being a good mother or a very bad one?”
<i>My Sister’s Keeper </i>was the first Jodi Picoult novel I read. (I have since read all Picoult’s books to date) I was not expecting much when I first picked it up, especially as I was reading it for a medical ethics module at college. Yet this book rekindled my love of reading and suddenly, after only reading one story, I was asking for Jodi Picoult books for my birthday.
Many people may be familiar with the storyline, even if they have not read the book, as <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> shot to fame when the film version hit the cinemas. Thirteen-year-old Anna Fitzgerald was Rhode Islands first genetically engineered baby, created with the purpose of providing her older sister Kate with the means to survive acute promyelocytic leukemia. However over the next few years Kate relapses resulting in Anna going under numerous procedures, such as bone marrow extraction, in order to save Kate’s life. Now things have got so bad that Kate will die unless Anna gives up one of her kidneys, yet unwilling to do this Anna hires a lawyer, Campbell Alexander, to sue her parents for the rights of her own body.
From reading a synopsis the reader can already see that <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is going to be an emotional story, but what was it that made me love the author so much?
The story was told from six points of view: Anna, Jesse (older brother), Sara (mother), Brian (father), Campbell and Julie (guardian ad litem). Notice that Kate was not one of the narrators, which leads us to speculate from the very start that Anna wins the case and Kate dies. Despite the six main characters there is no antagonist – unless you count cancer – and in all of them the reader can find something relatable.
In one of the chapters, Jesse pronounces that Kate is the martyr, Anna the peacekeeper and himself the lost cause. With Anna we can recognize the struggle to follow the decisions laid down for us by other people – a time when we have no choice of our own. Jesse represents the times when we have been ignored and forgotten because of bigger or more important events, thus resulting in attention seeking behaviour. Brian, the firefighter, the man who wants to save everyone, cannot put out the metaphorical fire that is his family. Sara, whose narrative starts in the past rather than present day, shows us how easy it is to get wrapped up in one problem (or daughter), ignoring everything (or everyone) else.
One thing that is great about all Picoult’s novels is that they are not focused on one storyline. Granted this book is focused on the trial and Kate’s illness, but the inclusion of Campbell and Julia’s voices provide an interesting subplot. Julia is not exactly thrilled to discover that she will be working alongside Campbell, a person she knew from school that she had a difficult past with. Since then Julia has found herself unlucky in love and blames Campbell for this. Campbell on the other hand has been having trouble of his own and now needs a service dog with him at all times. Yet he is self conscious about people knowing the true reason behind this and often comes up with creative lies to stop people from asking questions. “Maybe if God gives you a handicap, he makes sure you’ve got a few extra doses of humor to take the edge off.”
Another reason Picoult’s books are so great is that the reader learns something every time. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is full of medical and legal jargon, which may go over some people’s heads, but it is also bursting with random bits of knowledge, for example the way a fire should be treated, facts about astronomy and many other interesting details that the characters use as metaphors to describe their experiences.
Without taking into account Picoult’s novels and writing style as a whole, <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is a story that will stay in people’s hearts and minds for a long time. It is never revealed who the narrator of the prologue was, but we immediately assume that it is Anna and that she wants Kate to die. By the end, we are still unsure who the character was but if it was Anna we see it in a completely different light. This is not a book about whether it is ethical for Anna to be Kate’s donor; it is not a story about cancer. Instead it is a message about the right for each person to have choices in regards to their lives.
A warning to potential readers: this book could break your heart, shock you or leave you in tears. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is full of irony. Some of that makes up part of the story line, for instance Jesse’s experimentation with arson – fires that are then put out by his father. But the biggest sense of irony, the biggest shock is the ending (FYI this is the complete opposite to the film ending). After everything that has been achieved, devastating circumstances result in the same conclusion that it would have had Anna sat back and done nothing. Yet this does not make it a pointless story, despite Anna’s actions almost tearing the family apart, it also wakes them from the stupor that Kate’s illness has put them in and makes them realise how precious everything else in their life is too.
I highly recommend this book to everyone, and if you have not read a Jodi Picoult novel before I strongly suggest you begin with this one. It is suitable for adult and adolescent readers, especially those who like to think about hypothetical, moral questions. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> definitely gets you questioning your own choices and actions within your own life and may even make you view the world slightly differently.
<i>My Sister’s Keeper </i>was the first Jodi Picoult novel I read. (I have since read all Picoult’s books to date) I was not expecting much when I first picked it up, especially as I was reading it for a medical ethics module at college. Yet this book rekindled my love of reading and suddenly, after only reading one story, I was asking for Jodi Picoult books for my birthday.
Many people may be familiar with the storyline, even if they have not read the book, as <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> shot to fame when the film version hit the cinemas. Thirteen-year-old Anna Fitzgerald was Rhode Islands first genetically engineered baby, created with the purpose of providing her older sister Kate with the means to survive acute promyelocytic leukemia. However over the next few years Kate relapses resulting in Anna going under numerous procedures, such as bone marrow extraction, in order to save Kate’s life. Now things have got so bad that Kate will die unless Anna gives up one of her kidneys, yet unwilling to do this Anna hires a lawyer, Campbell Alexander, to sue her parents for the rights of her own body.
From reading a synopsis the reader can already see that <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is going to be an emotional story, but what was it that made me love the author so much?
The story was told from six points of view: Anna, Jesse (older brother), Sara (mother), Brian (father), Campbell and Julie (guardian ad litem). Notice that Kate was not one of the narrators, which leads us to speculate from the very start that Anna wins the case and Kate dies. Despite the six main characters there is no antagonist – unless you count cancer – and in all of them the reader can find something relatable.
In one of the chapters, Jesse pronounces that Kate is the martyr, Anna the peacekeeper and himself the lost cause. With Anna we can recognize the struggle to follow the decisions laid down for us by other people – a time when we have no choice of our own. Jesse represents the times when we have been ignored and forgotten because of bigger or more important events, thus resulting in attention seeking behaviour. Brian, the firefighter, the man who wants to save everyone, cannot put out the metaphorical fire that is his family. Sara, whose narrative starts in the past rather than present day, shows us how easy it is to get wrapped up in one problem (or daughter), ignoring everything (or everyone) else.
One thing that is great about all Picoult’s novels is that they are not focused on one storyline. Granted this book is focused on the trial and Kate’s illness, but the inclusion of Campbell and Julia’s voices provide an interesting subplot. Julia is not exactly thrilled to discover that she will be working alongside Campbell, a person she knew from school that she had a difficult past with. Since then Julia has found herself unlucky in love and blames Campbell for this. Campbell on the other hand has been having trouble of his own and now needs a service dog with him at all times. Yet he is self conscious about people knowing the true reason behind this and often comes up with creative lies to stop people from asking questions. “Maybe if God gives you a handicap, he makes sure you’ve got a few extra doses of humor to take the edge off.”
Another reason Picoult’s books are so great is that the reader learns something every time. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is full of medical and legal jargon, which may go over some people’s heads, but it is also bursting with random bits of knowledge, for example the way a fire should be treated, facts about astronomy and many other interesting details that the characters use as metaphors to describe their experiences.
Without taking into account Picoult’s novels and writing style as a whole, <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is a story that will stay in people’s hearts and minds for a long time. It is never revealed who the narrator of the prologue was, but we immediately assume that it is Anna and that she wants Kate to die. By the end, we are still unsure who the character was but if it was Anna we see it in a completely different light. This is not a book about whether it is ethical for Anna to be Kate’s donor; it is not a story about cancer. Instead it is a message about the right for each person to have choices in regards to their lives.
A warning to potential readers: this book could break your heart, shock you or leave you in tears. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is full of irony. Some of that makes up part of the story line, for instance Jesse’s experimentation with arson – fires that are then put out by his father. But the biggest sense of irony, the biggest shock is the ending (FYI this is the complete opposite to the film ending). After everything that has been achieved, devastating circumstances result in the same conclusion that it would have had Anna sat back and done nothing. Yet this does not make it a pointless story, despite Anna’s actions almost tearing the family apart, it also wakes them from the stupor that Kate’s illness has put them in and makes them realise how precious everything else in their life is too.
I highly recommend this book to everyone, and if you have not read a Jodi Picoult novel before I strongly suggest you begin with this one. It is suitable for adult and adolescent readers, especially those who like to think about hypothetical, moral questions. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> definitely gets you questioning your own choices and actions within your own life and may even make you view the world slightly differently.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Kids of Appetite in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Watchmen (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
**I've seen Tales of the Black Freighter, but I'm not sure I've ever seen the Ultimate Cut of this.**
A comedian died in New York. Someone threw him out of a window and when he hit the sidewalk his head was driven into his stomach. The only person that seems to care is Rorschach, the one superhero who refuses to take off his mask. The Keene Act was passed in 1977 banning all forms of costumed crimefighting. Rorschach continues to do so as he feels his mask is his true face. His theory is that someone is out to kill costumed heroes and that it's his responsibility to inform his former colleagues. There's Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II whom Rorschach used to be partners with before Dan retired, Adrian Veidt/Ozymondias, one of two costumed heroes to make his identity public who's also a self-made millionaire and considered to be the smartest man in the world, Dr. Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, the only one of the group who has genuine super powers thanks to an accident that nearly killed him who is now commissioned by the government, Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II, her mother was in the Minutemen along with The Comedian and wanted her daughter to follow in her footsteps, and finally Edward Blake/The Comedian, another superhero commissioned by the government that knows more than he should while his knowledge takes its toll on him and whoever is around him at the time thanks to his reckless and sadistic behavior. What any of them fail to realize is that there's a conspiracy going on that's bigger than any of them could have ever imagined.
I had watched the motion comic in its entirety earlier in the week to get myself ready for this and it had really gotten me excited for this film. The first time I read Watchmen, I thought it was good but not great. However, I thoroughly enjoyed it the second time through. My biggest question going into the film is how I would feel about the altered ending since I already knew about that going into it. Turns out that the ending in question wasn't so bad, but I wasn't happy with some of the other things that were changed or left out to lead up to said ending.
The film is pretty much right on the money the majority of the time. Zack Snyder continues his trend of pulling panels directly from the source material and making them a cinematic reality. The dialogue is often times word for word from the graphic novel and doesn't feel forced or out of place when something new is used. The cast left nothing to be complained about as they all did a great job. Jackie Earle Haley was a fantastic Rorschach. He sounded just the way I expected Rorschach to sound and just looked like a splitting image of Walter Kovacs. Billy Crudup's emotionless Dr. Manhattan was also pretty much just as I envisioned. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian was the one I seemed to be most pleased with. He did a great job making you care about this costumed superhero who did brutally sadistic things to people yet somehow still made you care about his character. Snyder's use of slow motion seems to be used more efficiently this time around. It felt like it was used only when needed rather than just to be eye candy. The effects used with Dr. Manhattan are worth a mention. Even if he's just standing there, you can tell how much time and effort was put into making him look spectacular. Let alone cost quite a bit of money. Rorschach's mask was also an interesting special effect that is sure to catch anyone's eye. The effects are pretty flawless and should please most moviegoers.
There was a lot of material left out of the film or changed that I wasn't particularly happy with. I don't want to seem too nitpicky, so I'll only touch base on a few of them. I view most of the stuff that was left out as character development that was important to the overall story. Most of the material in question concerns Rorschach; he visited Adrian Veidt to warn him of his mask killer theory not Dan, his response to The Keene Act, Walter Kovac's landlady, anything concerning his apartment, and his drop box, where he hides his mask during the day, everything about his psychiatrist's relationship bending and breaking during the course of the Rorschach case, how and where he got the mask, how he disposed of the man who kidnapped that little girl, and it just keeps going. Most of that was left out of the theatrical version of the film. Around the halfway point to the end of the film, I felt like it just strayed further and further away from the source material. In the novel, Dr. Manhattan is the only superhero with superpowers. The film kind of leaves that up in the air since other characters are seen punching stone off of walls and jumping to inhuman heights into the air. It was just kind of a, "Wait...what?" kind of moment for me. I realize it was probably just the wirework used that I'm questioning, but it didn't sit well with me.
I'm hoping the final cut of the film that's rumored to be three hours to three and a half hours long puts some of these important bits (including Hollis' death and The Black Freighter storyline among other things) back into the story. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy it, but it wound up just not meeting my expectations. My recommendation is don't read the graphic novel before viewing the film. The film is worthwhile for Zack Snyder enthusiasts, comic book fans, and pretty much anyone looking for a good action film. I would recommend it to just about anyone, but I think that ultimate version of the DVD is going to be what fans will really be excited over and for good reason. As a film, it's incredibly entertaining. In comparison to the graphic novel, it comes up a bit short. For now, I just see it as a good film that could have been a lot better.
A comedian died in New York. Someone threw him out of a window and when he hit the sidewalk his head was driven into his stomach. The only person that seems to care is Rorschach, the one superhero who refuses to take off his mask. The Keene Act was passed in 1977 banning all forms of costumed crimefighting. Rorschach continues to do so as he feels his mask is his true face. His theory is that someone is out to kill costumed heroes and that it's his responsibility to inform his former colleagues. There's Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II whom Rorschach used to be partners with before Dan retired, Adrian Veidt/Ozymondias, one of two costumed heroes to make his identity public who's also a self-made millionaire and considered to be the smartest man in the world, Dr. Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, the only one of the group who has genuine super powers thanks to an accident that nearly killed him who is now commissioned by the government, Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II, her mother was in the Minutemen along with The Comedian and wanted her daughter to follow in her footsteps, and finally Edward Blake/The Comedian, another superhero commissioned by the government that knows more than he should while his knowledge takes its toll on him and whoever is around him at the time thanks to his reckless and sadistic behavior. What any of them fail to realize is that there's a conspiracy going on that's bigger than any of them could have ever imagined.
I had watched the motion comic in its entirety earlier in the week to get myself ready for this and it had really gotten me excited for this film. The first time I read Watchmen, I thought it was good but not great. However, I thoroughly enjoyed it the second time through. My biggest question going into the film is how I would feel about the altered ending since I already knew about that going into it. Turns out that the ending in question wasn't so bad, but I wasn't happy with some of the other things that were changed or left out to lead up to said ending.
The film is pretty much right on the money the majority of the time. Zack Snyder continues his trend of pulling panels directly from the source material and making them a cinematic reality. The dialogue is often times word for word from the graphic novel and doesn't feel forced or out of place when something new is used. The cast left nothing to be complained about as they all did a great job. Jackie Earle Haley was a fantastic Rorschach. He sounded just the way I expected Rorschach to sound and just looked like a splitting image of Walter Kovacs. Billy Crudup's emotionless Dr. Manhattan was also pretty much just as I envisioned. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian was the one I seemed to be most pleased with. He did a great job making you care about this costumed superhero who did brutally sadistic things to people yet somehow still made you care about his character. Snyder's use of slow motion seems to be used more efficiently this time around. It felt like it was used only when needed rather than just to be eye candy. The effects used with Dr. Manhattan are worth a mention. Even if he's just standing there, you can tell how much time and effort was put into making him look spectacular. Let alone cost quite a bit of money. Rorschach's mask was also an interesting special effect that is sure to catch anyone's eye. The effects are pretty flawless and should please most moviegoers.
There was a lot of material left out of the film or changed that I wasn't particularly happy with. I don't want to seem too nitpicky, so I'll only touch base on a few of them. I view most of the stuff that was left out as character development that was important to the overall story. Most of the material in question concerns Rorschach; he visited Adrian Veidt to warn him of his mask killer theory not Dan, his response to The Keene Act, Walter Kovac's landlady, anything concerning his apartment, and his drop box, where he hides his mask during the day, everything about his psychiatrist's relationship bending and breaking during the course of the Rorschach case, how and where he got the mask, how he disposed of the man who kidnapped that little girl, and it just keeps going. Most of that was left out of the theatrical version of the film. Around the halfway point to the end of the film, I felt like it just strayed further and further away from the source material. In the novel, Dr. Manhattan is the only superhero with superpowers. The film kind of leaves that up in the air since other characters are seen punching stone off of walls and jumping to inhuman heights into the air. It was just kind of a, "Wait...what?" kind of moment for me. I realize it was probably just the wirework used that I'm questioning, but it didn't sit well with me.
I'm hoping the final cut of the film that's rumored to be three hours to three and a half hours long puts some of these important bits (including Hollis' death and The Black Freighter storyline among other things) back into the story. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy it, but it wound up just not meeting my expectations. My recommendation is don't read the graphic novel before viewing the film. The film is worthwhile for Zack Snyder enthusiasts, comic book fans, and pretty much anyone looking for a good action film. I would recommend it to just about anyone, but I think that ultimate version of the DVD is going to be what fans will really be excited over and for good reason. As a film, it's incredibly entertaining. In comparison to the graphic novel, it comes up a bit short. For now, I just see it as a good film that could have been a lot better.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Tarantino makes good movies, I like them, but I don't love them. When everyone was raving about the OUATIH trailer I was sitting back going "that looks okay, but..." I wasn't sure I could see how they were going to mix the two strands of the story together, or why. After seeing it I'm still not sure.
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Vamp on the Batwalk in Tabletop Games
Feb 12, 2021
I think I could be a vampire. Not that I THINK I’m a vampire, but I think I could live(?) with being a vamp. Not the sparkly kind. Just the normal kind. Or maybe the “What We Do in the Shadows” kind. Yeah. At least initially I don’t think I would care much about being the most fashionable vampire in the group, but I could see why some of the elder vampires would need SOMETHING over which to compete and obsess. Maybe I could be one of the judges.
Vamp on the Batwalk has players take on the personalities of one of these fashionable elder vampires competing in the latest fashion show. The only problem is that vampires are unable to see themselves in mirrors, so they cannot really assure themselves that they look marvelous; the other vampires will have that privilege. Which vampire can win the most fashion shows this year with limited knowledge of how they look? Who would… stake… their reputation on mere fashion shows anyway?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup invert the bottom of the box and insert it into the back of the box top lid to create a runway. A “batwalk,” if you will. Each player will choose a vampire and place their standee on the batwalk Start space. They will also take the matching Reference Card. All Vamp Cards matching the vamps in play are collected, shuffled together, and five are dealt to each player. Whichever player is most fashionable goes first and the game may begin!
Vamp on the Batwalk is a trick-taking game where players know not which cards they hold. Instead, their hands are facing all other players in order to suss out which cards they may be holding. The first player will open the game by playing any card from their hand. The next player also will play any card they wish, and so on until all players have played a card.
Once each card is played the “lead” card may be switched depending on the rules of the game. Should all cards played be of the same suit the highest card played is the lead card and wins the trick. Similarly, if the first card played remains the highest card in that suit and no other cards played earn the lead card status, that highest card wins the trick.
However, when a card is played that is the same value (a three played on a three of a different suit) the newest card with the matching value “Steals the Show” and becomes the new lead card. Some cards feature a star for the value. These star cards will always take the lead unless a garlic card has been played to trump the star. Garlic cards typically are the lowest-ranking suit, but when played in the same hand as a star become the trump suit.
Luckily, the reference cards have handy reminders for these special rules. After all cards from the hand have been played, players check who is winning the fashion show based on points earned during the round. If this is the end of the third round the vamp with the most points wins! If not, the player to the left of the most recent first player then becomes the first player for the next round.
Components. This game features an ingenious scoreboard that is just so fun to use. Having the box double as the scoreboard runway was such a great decision and it works flawlessly. The cards are all large tarot-sized (I think, I’m no tarot-master) and feature some really great art. The player standees are fine, but only four or so can actually fit on a space on the runway without creating a mess. All in all I adore the components and art style here.
Now, several games also employ this mechanic of holding your hand of cards outward for opponents to see, but here the players never really are told which cards they hold. In Vamp on the Batwalk the card play is silly and mostly a guessing game, at least in my head. One can never truly know all the cards they hold because each round not all cards are used. This adds another layer of difficulty in trying to guess what you are holding. This may turn off certain gamers, but it’s a silly way to play the game and I love it.
At the end of the day, this is a game about vampires putting on a fashion show. I feel like once I decided not to take it so seriously I began enjoying it so much more. Sometimes it’s a surprise to win a trick with a 2 of garlic. A throwaway card usually can win if a star is played. Or thinking you have THE card to win the trick only to have someone else Steal the Show and beat you out. It’s just chaotic silliness and I’m smitten.
If you are at all anything like me and can put aside the need to win at all times and at all costs, you will enjoy this one. It is wacky, has an amazing theme and excellent components, and is just a fun game to relax with or to help recharge after a brain burning sesh. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a blood-slurping 8 / 12. Even though I think the blue vamp is eerily similar to Travis McElroy, the almost-coolest-Travis, this one is a hit for me. Go grab it if you like fun games that don’t tax the brain a whole lot.
Vamp on the Batwalk has players take on the personalities of one of these fashionable elder vampires competing in the latest fashion show. The only problem is that vampires are unable to see themselves in mirrors, so they cannot really assure themselves that they look marvelous; the other vampires will have that privilege. Which vampire can win the most fashion shows this year with limited knowledge of how they look? Who would… stake… their reputation on mere fashion shows anyway?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup invert the bottom of the box and insert it into the back of the box top lid to create a runway. A “batwalk,” if you will. Each player will choose a vampire and place their standee on the batwalk Start space. They will also take the matching Reference Card. All Vamp Cards matching the vamps in play are collected, shuffled together, and five are dealt to each player. Whichever player is most fashionable goes first and the game may begin!
Vamp on the Batwalk is a trick-taking game where players know not which cards they hold. Instead, their hands are facing all other players in order to suss out which cards they may be holding. The first player will open the game by playing any card from their hand. The next player also will play any card they wish, and so on until all players have played a card.
Once each card is played the “lead” card may be switched depending on the rules of the game. Should all cards played be of the same suit the highest card played is the lead card and wins the trick. Similarly, if the first card played remains the highest card in that suit and no other cards played earn the lead card status, that highest card wins the trick.
However, when a card is played that is the same value (a three played on a three of a different suit) the newest card with the matching value “Steals the Show” and becomes the new lead card. Some cards feature a star for the value. These star cards will always take the lead unless a garlic card has been played to trump the star. Garlic cards typically are the lowest-ranking suit, but when played in the same hand as a star become the trump suit.
Luckily, the reference cards have handy reminders for these special rules. After all cards from the hand have been played, players check who is winning the fashion show based on points earned during the round. If this is the end of the third round the vamp with the most points wins! If not, the player to the left of the most recent first player then becomes the first player for the next round.
Components. This game features an ingenious scoreboard that is just so fun to use. Having the box double as the scoreboard runway was such a great decision and it works flawlessly. The cards are all large tarot-sized (I think, I’m no tarot-master) and feature some really great art. The player standees are fine, but only four or so can actually fit on a space on the runway without creating a mess. All in all I adore the components and art style here.
Now, several games also employ this mechanic of holding your hand of cards outward for opponents to see, but here the players never really are told which cards they hold. In Vamp on the Batwalk the card play is silly and mostly a guessing game, at least in my head. One can never truly know all the cards they hold because each round not all cards are used. This adds another layer of difficulty in trying to guess what you are holding. This may turn off certain gamers, but it’s a silly way to play the game and I love it.
At the end of the day, this is a game about vampires putting on a fashion show. I feel like once I decided not to take it so seriously I began enjoying it so much more. Sometimes it’s a surprise to win a trick with a 2 of garlic. A throwaway card usually can win if a star is played. Or thinking you have THE card to win the trick only to have someone else Steal the Show and beat you out. It’s just chaotic silliness and I’m smitten.
If you are at all anything like me and can put aside the need to win at all times and at all costs, you will enjoy this one. It is wacky, has an amazing theme and excellent components, and is just a fun game to relax with or to help recharge after a brain burning sesh. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a blood-slurping 8 / 12. Even though I think the blue vamp is eerily similar to Travis McElroy, the almost-coolest-Travis, this one is a hit for me. Go grab it if you like fun games that don’t tax the brain a whole lot.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
One of the best action films of Tom Cruise's incredible career. (4 more)
Emily Blunt is a true force to be reckoned with.
The film's aliens and special effects are simply outstanding.
Unexpectedly hilarious. Who knew watching Tom Cruise die repeatedly could be so funny?
Edge of Tomorrow feels like a video game made into an unforgettably great movie.
Edge of Tomorrow is one of the best action movies of Tom Cruise’s illustrious career and might just be the most fun you'll have at the movies all year.
Amidst the yearly barrage of unimaginative action movies, Edge of Tomorrow is a breath of fresh air. It’s smart, funny, and full of action-packed excitement. It is a definitive summer blockbuster and is one of the best action movies of Tom Cruise’s illustrious career. Based on the graphic novel All You Need is Kill by Hiroshi Sakurazaka, Edge of Tomorrow stars Tom Cruise as Major William Cage, who has earned his rank without ever having served a day in combat. All of that quickly comes to a change when he’s put on the frontlines of a war that threatens humanity’s entire existence. Thrust into combat, Cage is cowardly, and also comically unprepared. He fearfully fights for his life, but is quickly killed in the conflict, only to reawaken at the start of the same day. Cage is given another chance at life, with the benefit of having lived the day before and fully remembering it. This is not a gift bestowed upon Tom Cruise by the power of Scientology, nor by Tom Cruise’s near-invincibility in his films, but instead his character Cage inadvertently has tapped into a divine alien power through which he is able to re-spawn from death over and over again. Trapped In this seemingly infinite loop, Cage is able to learn from his mistakes and thereby has the power to single-handedly change the outcome of this war and save the human race from complete annihilation.
The brilliance of Edge of Tomorrow is in its execution. This is a movie that could have easily been tiresome considering it replays the same day continuously on repeat, but it’s handled in a way that makes it entertaining and engaging. It is superbly edited to keep the story moving and the laughs coming. Even as a huge fan of Tom Cruise, I had a marvelous time watching him die off again and again while thoroughly laughing at his expense. What makes it so funny is that Tom is completely in on the joke and is able to generously poke fun at himself. He is perfectly cast in this role, as it allows him to act totally crazy and completely spineless, while gradually transitioning into his usual kick-ass, cool Cruise persona. Edge of Tomorrow feels both exhilarating and original, although it is clearly inspired in part by some other films, such as the comedy classic Groundhog Day, and even The Matrix trilogy. However, having these influences doesn’t take away from the film’s enormous accomplishments. To call it an action sci-fi version of Groundhog Day is only to sell it short. In fact, Edge of Tomorrow might just be the most fun you’ll have at the movies all year.
The conflict in Edge of Tomorrow is an alien invasion that is obliterating humanity. The aliens, known as Mimics, have taken over most of Europe, and with the exception of one keystone battle, have easily routed human military forces. Rita Vrataski, played by Emily Blunt, led that decisive victory at Verdun, earning herself the moniker the “Angel of Verdun” after single-handedly killing hundreds of Mimics in humanity’s first and only victory against the alien species. How was one woman able to massacre these aliens that can lay waste to an armed infantry in minutes? Well, as Cage finds out, she previously had his ability to reset in death, although she no longer possesses that power. Nevertheless, with her knowledge and skill set acquired from her nearly infinite practice, she can transform Cage into Earth’s greatest weapon.
Edge of Tomorrow is a thoroughly impressive package, complete with superb special effects, a heart-pounding musical score, and outstanding performances from its lead characters. Tom Cruise carries the film with veteran expertise, making the film fun and deeply entertaining. Emily Blunt is a powerhouse as Rita, showcasing a heroic toughness with a survivor mentality. I don’t think there are many actresses in Hollywood that could play such a role as convincingly as Blunt does here. Meanwhile, Bill Paxton is as enjoyable to watch as ever. He plays Master Sergeant Farrell, who is Cage’s cocky commanding officer that takes great pleasure in giving him a hard time. As for the aliens in the movie, they look absolutely incredible, not to mention highly original. I think they’re some of the coolest aliens I’ve ever seen, and they’re also far more threatening than your typical movie alien. They’re deathly fast and unpredictable, which makes the film’s action all the more intense. Edge of Tomorrow actually feels very much like a video game, and not just because of the respawning feature. The characters are memorable, the stakes are high, and the action is so engrossing that you feel like you’re an active participant in it. The creativity and combat at work in this film are worthy of belonging in a blockbuster game series. It rarely lets up and is an adrenaline-fueled ride from beginning to end.
I’ll admit that Edge of Tomorrow far-exceeded my expectations. It’s cool in every way imaginable, from the story and the action to the aliens and characters. It will immerse you in its desolate, doomed world that unknowingly rests on the brink of total destruction. Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt are both in top form and make this a movie you won’t want to miss. Edge of Tomorrow is certain to become an instant action classic. One that I wholly look forward to watching again and again and again.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 6.30.14.)
The brilliance of Edge of Tomorrow is in its execution. This is a movie that could have easily been tiresome considering it replays the same day continuously on repeat, but it’s handled in a way that makes it entertaining and engaging. It is superbly edited to keep the story moving and the laughs coming. Even as a huge fan of Tom Cruise, I had a marvelous time watching him die off again and again while thoroughly laughing at his expense. What makes it so funny is that Tom is completely in on the joke and is able to generously poke fun at himself. He is perfectly cast in this role, as it allows him to act totally crazy and completely spineless, while gradually transitioning into his usual kick-ass, cool Cruise persona. Edge of Tomorrow feels both exhilarating and original, although it is clearly inspired in part by some other films, such as the comedy classic Groundhog Day, and even The Matrix trilogy. However, having these influences doesn’t take away from the film’s enormous accomplishments. To call it an action sci-fi version of Groundhog Day is only to sell it short. In fact, Edge of Tomorrow might just be the most fun you’ll have at the movies all year.
The conflict in Edge of Tomorrow is an alien invasion that is obliterating humanity. The aliens, known as Mimics, have taken over most of Europe, and with the exception of one keystone battle, have easily routed human military forces. Rita Vrataski, played by Emily Blunt, led that decisive victory at Verdun, earning herself the moniker the “Angel of Verdun” after single-handedly killing hundreds of Mimics in humanity’s first and only victory against the alien species. How was one woman able to massacre these aliens that can lay waste to an armed infantry in minutes? Well, as Cage finds out, she previously had his ability to reset in death, although she no longer possesses that power. Nevertheless, with her knowledge and skill set acquired from her nearly infinite practice, she can transform Cage into Earth’s greatest weapon.
Edge of Tomorrow is a thoroughly impressive package, complete with superb special effects, a heart-pounding musical score, and outstanding performances from its lead characters. Tom Cruise carries the film with veteran expertise, making the film fun and deeply entertaining. Emily Blunt is a powerhouse as Rita, showcasing a heroic toughness with a survivor mentality. I don’t think there are many actresses in Hollywood that could play such a role as convincingly as Blunt does here. Meanwhile, Bill Paxton is as enjoyable to watch as ever. He plays Master Sergeant Farrell, who is Cage’s cocky commanding officer that takes great pleasure in giving him a hard time. As for the aliens in the movie, they look absolutely incredible, not to mention highly original. I think they’re some of the coolest aliens I’ve ever seen, and they’re also far more threatening than your typical movie alien. They’re deathly fast and unpredictable, which makes the film’s action all the more intense. Edge of Tomorrow actually feels very much like a video game, and not just because of the respawning feature. The characters are memorable, the stakes are high, and the action is so engrossing that you feel like you’re an active participant in it. The creativity and combat at work in this film are worthy of belonging in a blockbuster game series. It rarely lets up and is an adrenaline-fueled ride from beginning to end.
I’ll admit that Edge of Tomorrow far-exceeded my expectations. It’s cool in every way imaginable, from the story and the action to the aliens and characters. It will immerse you in its desolate, doomed world that unknowingly rests on the brink of total destruction. Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt are both in top form and make this a movie you won’t want to miss. Edge of Tomorrow is certain to become an instant action classic. One that I wholly look forward to watching again and again and again.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 6.30.14.)
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated What Once Was Mine in Books
Oct 25, 2021
𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒇 𝑹𝒂𝒑𝒖𝒏𝒛𝒆𝒍’𝒔 𝒎𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒅𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒌 𝒂 𝒑𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓?
As you will all know by now, I am in love with the Twisted Tales series and have to read each installment as they are released. What Once was Mine is the 12th Twisted Tale book and the 7th written by Liz Braswell so to say I was excited would be an understatement.
As always, TT books come with a tag line to lure you in and this one is “What if Rapunzel’s mother drank a potion from the wrong flower?” Yes, instead of the golden Sundrop flower, the ailing pregnant queen is mistakenly given a potion using the Moondrop flower, resulting in a silver-haired princess whose power kills rather than heals!
Of course, that casts the whole locking the princess in a tower concept into an entirely new light! However, many of the other elements remain the same as Disney’s ‘Tangled’ movie: Gothel is Rapunzel’s captor and “mother”, Flynn steals a crown and is on the run from the Stabbington brothers and Rapunzel is desperate to see the floating lights.
What Liz Braswell manages to do (very well, in my opinion) is to maintain all these similarities, keeping her readers rooted to the original story but also to bend the original fairytale into something a bit more mature, a bit darker and, in some cases, a bit more real.
“𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚𝙙, 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙙𝙨, 𝙍𝙖𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙡”
What Once was Mine is written from Rapunzel’s perspective. Now, this may be an obvious choice, but it also gives Braswell the opportunity to show her protagonist in a slightly more mature light than we are used to. Yes, Rapunzel is scatty, enthusiastic and teeth-grittingly cheerful about everything but she also believes she is dangerous and that she belongs in the tower for the safety of others.
Rapunzel has always been told that her hair killed her parents and that Gothel has been charged with her care and protection. However, what I really enjoyed about Braswell’s Rapunzel is that, although she begins with the same blind faith in Gothel as she has in the movie, she soon develops an inner turmoil of emotions with regards to her captor, questioning where she spends her days and recognising the little digs often made at the daughter’s expense.
As her journey continues, Rapunzel observes other mother-daughter relationships and her doubt and distrust of Gothel begins to build as a result. Lords, ladies and bandits alike are hunting for Rapunzel in order to claim her as their prize but this couldn’t be orchestrated by her mother, the only family she has ever known, could it?
“𝘽𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙝 𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙗𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛, 𝙍𝙖𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙡. 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩’𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙖𝙧 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙜𝙞𝙛𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙛𝙡𝙤𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙨.”
I have conflicting feelings when it comes to the darker elements of What Once Was Mine. The inclusion of the very real Countess Bathory took me by surprise and was quite gruesome in places: not a problem for a grown-up Disney nerd but I’m not sure whether I will be passing this one along to the Mini Bookworm any time soon.
There is also the narrator of the story: a brother making up an alternative Rapunzel story for his sister while she is undergoing chemo. I understand this is an emotive topic for the author and I almost got it as a tool for the story-telling, enabling the use of quite modern, colloquial terms such as “murderhair” and enabling the creative inclusion of characters such as Maximus.
I really wanted this technique to be profound and make the story mean more, such as fairytales having an important place in the modern world for example. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat for me: it was an interesting tweak but it didn’t make me feel as much as I wanted it to.
It is not all doom and gloom though, Rapunzel’s perspective of the world provides comic moments: her (limited) knowledge of the world comes from the 37 books that she owns, leading to a moose that is definitely a squirrel and a cat which acts suspiciously like a fox. We are also not deprived of the regulars of The Snuggly Duckling, indeed all of your favourites from the film turn up for this novel.
Braswell’s characterisation when it came to Flynn was spot on in my opinion. The observation by Rapunzel that there is the “real” Flynn and then there is the charming, roguish mask he uses was perfect! Gina was also a great addition, desperately trying to be an adventurer/criminal and not being taken seriously just because she is a girl. The relationship between her and Flynn was adorable and, of course, Gina’s mother is just legendary.
“𝙎𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙨; 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣 𝙪𝙣𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙙 𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙘𝙮”
The writing style isn’t for everyone and, I must admit, this is the twisted tale which I have probably put down and walked away from the most. However, if you can stick it through the slow sections the story is really worth it and provides a much-admired evolution of the Disney Princess.
Don’t get me wrong - in the animated movie Rapunzel is great and all but by the end she is a princess with a haircut and a smouldering husband. Braswell’s Rapunzel has magic that she needs to study, understand and control, she is a future Queen in the making and simply has more of a purpose than her animated counterpart.
“𝙎𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖 𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙗𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙣 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣”
What Once Was Mine brings a whole new depth to the characters of Disney’s Tangled. It gives us a new (frankly, disgusting) villain alongside all our favourite characters and definitely presents a creative twist on the traditional story. Don’t worry, Rapunzel still gets her Happily Ever After, but she fought a little harder for it this time around!
As you will all know by now, I am in love with the Twisted Tales series and have to read each installment as they are released. What Once was Mine is the 12th Twisted Tale book and the 7th written by Liz Braswell so to say I was excited would be an understatement.
As always, TT books come with a tag line to lure you in and this one is “What if Rapunzel’s mother drank a potion from the wrong flower?” Yes, instead of the golden Sundrop flower, the ailing pregnant queen is mistakenly given a potion using the Moondrop flower, resulting in a silver-haired princess whose power kills rather than heals!
Of course, that casts the whole locking the princess in a tower concept into an entirely new light! However, many of the other elements remain the same as Disney’s ‘Tangled’ movie: Gothel is Rapunzel’s captor and “mother”, Flynn steals a crown and is on the run from the Stabbington brothers and Rapunzel is desperate to see the floating lights.
What Liz Braswell manages to do (very well, in my opinion) is to maintain all these similarities, keeping her readers rooted to the original story but also to bend the original fairytale into something a bit more mature, a bit darker and, in some cases, a bit more real.
“𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚𝙙, 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙙𝙨, 𝙍𝙖𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙡”
What Once was Mine is written from Rapunzel’s perspective. Now, this may be an obvious choice, but it also gives Braswell the opportunity to show her protagonist in a slightly more mature light than we are used to. Yes, Rapunzel is scatty, enthusiastic and teeth-grittingly cheerful about everything but she also believes she is dangerous and that she belongs in the tower for the safety of others.
Rapunzel has always been told that her hair killed her parents and that Gothel has been charged with her care and protection. However, what I really enjoyed about Braswell’s Rapunzel is that, although she begins with the same blind faith in Gothel as she has in the movie, she soon develops an inner turmoil of emotions with regards to her captor, questioning where she spends her days and recognising the little digs often made at the daughter’s expense.
As her journey continues, Rapunzel observes other mother-daughter relationships and her doubt and distrust of Gothel begins to build as a result. Lords, ladies and bandits alike are hunting for Rapunzel in order to claim her as their prize but this couldn’t be orchestrated by her mother, the only family she has ever known, could it?
“𝘽𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙝 𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙗𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛, 𝙍𝙖𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙡. 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩’𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙖𝙧 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙜𝙞𝙛𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙛𝙡𝙤𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙨.”
I have conflicting feelings when it comes to the darker elements of What Once Was Mine. The inclusion of the very real Countess Bathory took me by surprise and was quite gruesome in places: not a problem for a grown-up Disney nerd but I’m not sure whether I will be passing this one along to the Mini Bookworm any time soon.
There is also the narrator of the story: a brother making up an alternative Rapunzel story for his sister while she is undergoing chemo. I understand this is an emotive topic for the author and I almost got it as a tool for the story-telling, enabling the use of quite modern, colloquial terms such as “murderhair” and enabling the creative inclusion of characters such as Maximus.
I really wanted this technique to be profound and make the story mean more, such as fairytales having an important place in the modern world for example. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat for me: it was an interesting tweak but it didn’t make me feel as much as I wanted it to.
It is not all doom and gloom though, Rapunzel’s perspective of the world provides comic moments: her (limited) knowledge of the world comes from the 37 books that she owns, leading to a moose that is definitely a squirrel and a cat which acts suspiciously like a fox. We are also not deprived of the regulars of The Snuggly Duckling, indeed all of your favourites from the film turn up for this novel.
Braswell’s characterisation when it came to Flynn was spot on in my opinion. The observation by Rapunzel that there is the “real” Flynn and then there is the charming, roguish mask he uses was perfect! Gina was also a great addition, desperately trying to be an adventurer/criminal and not being taken seriously just because she is a girl. The relationship between her and Flynn was adorable and, of course, Gina’s mother is just legendary.
“𝙎𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙨; 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣 𝙪𝙣𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙙 𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙘𝙮”
The writing style isn’t for everyone and, I must admit, this is the twisted tale which I have probably put down and walked away from the most. However, if you can stick it through the slow sections the story is really worth it and provides a much-admired evolution of the Disney Princess.
Don’t get me wrong - in the animated movie Rapunzel is great and all but by the end she is a princess with a haircut and a smouldering husband. Braswell’s Rapunzel has magic that she needs to study, understand and control, she is a future Queen in the making and simply has more of a purpose than her animated counterpart.
“𝙎𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖 𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙗𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙣 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣”
What Once Was Mine brings a whole new depth to the characters of Disney’s Tangled. It gives us a new (frankly, disgusting) villain alongside all our favourite characters and definitely presents a creative twist on the traditional story. Don’t worry, Rapunzel still gets her Happily Ever After, but she fought a little harder for it this time around!
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated The Panopticon in Books
May 13, 2017
This is my all time favouurite book.
Jenny Fagan stated in an interview in 2013 that prior to writing the novel The Panopticon (2012) she had one question, ‘is it possible to achieve autonomy?’ Fagan explores this question throughout her novel with the character of Anais Hendrix. I would also suggest that the author is metaphorically exploring whether Scotland can achieve autonomy as an independent nation. Autonomy, in relation to the individual, is self-governance- or being able to decide for oneself
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017 (Updated Apr 16, 2021)
80's setting (2 more)
Quicksilver
Oscar Isaacs
Mutants Have Mankind Divided
This movie has had the most mixed reaction that I have seen since Batman V Superman, however I do objectively believe that X Men is a better movie and to be honest I don’t understand the mixed response Apocalypse has gotten. The year is 1983, 10 years after the last x men movie, Days Of Future Past (as in the kind of 10 years where no one ages a day,) and we know that it is 1983 because some of the young mutants go and see Return Of The Jedi in the cinema. The hairstyles and fashion statements are suitably 80’s, which is an appropriate motif to choose as it adds a more comic book feel to the movie and forces it to stick to a brighter colour pallet than some of the previous X men outings. Another positive is the return of Quicksilver, who has another awesome slow motion scene, which possibly isn’t as well choreographed as the one in DOFP, but is definitely grander in scale. While the design of Apocalypse in this movie has been heavily criticised, I didn’t feel that it took me out of the movie and I felt that Oscar Isaacs’ portrayal of the ancient mutant is another great turn by the actor and proves yet again how diverse and chameleon like he really is. The one downside of his character is that he has been significantly nerfed in terms of his powers here. He does feel powerful, but never overwhelmingly so and when the final confrontation does take place, it feels like he is holding back. This could be explained in a contrived manner by saying that he doesn’t want to kill mutants, because they are all his children, but if the success of his plan depends on it then he shouldn’t even hesitate, he should just wipe all the X Men out in an instant like we know he can.
The tone is another issue I have with the movie, it is fairly inconsistent throughout and never reaches the level of threat that it is aiming for. However, this is through no fault of the cast or the performances. MacAvoy and Fassbender stand out here as you would expect, their relationship also remains one of the most interesting parts of the plot. Isaacs’ performance is also suitably threatening and sinister, the only thing lacking in his character other than the odd design choice, is how short he is next to the other mutants. He doesn’t have to be huge like in the comics and cartoons, but making him a little bit more physically imposing with clever camera tricks would have went a long way in adding to the character. Jennifer Lawrence is fine here as usual and young Cyclops and Jean Grey are perfectly serviceable, although Sophie Turner’s American accent does come and go in certain scenes. Even Peters is typically brilliant as Quicksilver and the actress who plays Storm here is also pretty convincing, as is the young English actor who plays Angel. Nightcrawler is a welcome addition to the roster as I feel that he has been criminally underused since the second X Men movie and his power set is definitely one of the most interesting in all of the X Men movies, also the actor playing him here does a good job throughout the film. However the same can’t be said for Olivia Munn who plays Psylocke in this movie, I have disliked this actress in every role I have seen her in to date and the same goes for this one, she brings nothing to the movie and she constantly has a resting bitch face that suggests she doesn’t want to be there.
Like Civil War, X Men wasn’t anything like the comic it was based on and we didn’t get what we expected, but what we did end up getting was fresh and entertaining in it’s own right, so it’s okay that the film plots aren’t 100% faithful to the source material and that is something that Singer has been preaching since he made the first X Men movie back in 2001, which incidentally wasn’t based on any comic book and was a totally original plot. Also I love how because of the alternate timeline they are now free to do whatever they want in terms of the timing of certain events. For example, (and this is a slight spoiler, but the movie has been out for a while now so deal with it,) the Phoenix Force makes an appearance in this movie, which typically isn’t something that Jean Grey acquires until later in her life. Also the fact that we saw Wolverine escaping from Weapon X again, (again spoilers but this was in the trailers anyway so again, deal with it,) was awesome and this time we saw him being broken out by the young X Men and this time he had the comic book accurate electric headgear on while he escaped and I also loved how we saw him interact with young Jean Grey and regain some of his memories. This could also could be a change in the timeline caused by the butterfly effect as a result of the events of Days Of Future Past. This would also explain why the Magneto/Quicksilver, father/son relationship has never been discussed before, because if Apocalypse never awakened in the original X Men trilogy, then Quicksilver would have never went to the X Men mansion and therefore wouldn’t have come into contact with his dad during the final battle scene. Also Mystique looks like she is now a member and potential leader of the X Men team, rather than an enemy of the team like she was in the original movies when she was played by Rebecca Romjin. The other big change in the timeline is the death of Magneto’s family and even the fact that he had a wife and another child besides Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie, however I can also see why some people would take a disliking to it, as it does require a good amount of previous knowledge of the universe, but as an X Men fan, I loved it. Also another criticism I have read is that people aren’t happy with the length of the film, stating that it is too long and it drags in, but I actually thought the pacing was spot on. Anyway as an X Men fan, I loved my time would this movie and I look forward to seeing it again and I’d recommend it to anyone who is a mutant superhero fan.
The tone is another issue I have with the movie, it is fairly inconsistent throughout and never reaches the level of threat that it is aiming for. However, this is through no fault of the cast or the performances. MacAvoy and Fassbender stand out here as you would expect, their relationship also remains one of the most interesting parts of the plot. Isaacs’ performance is also suitably threatening and sinister, the only thing lacking in his character other than the odd design choice, is how short he is next to the other mutants. He doesn’t have to be huge like in the comics and cartoons, but making him a little bit more physically imposing with clever camera tricks would have went a long way in adding to the character. Jennifer Lawrence is fine here as usual and young Cyclops and Jean Grey are perfectly serviceable, although Sophie Turner’s American accent does come and go in certain scenes. Even Peters is typically brilliant as Quicksilver and the actress who plays Storm here is also pretty convincing, as is the young English actor who plays Angel. Nightcrawler is a welcome addition to the roster as I feel that he has been criminally underused since the second X Men movie and his power set is definitely one of the most interesting in all of the X Men movies, also the actor playing him here does a good job throughout the film. However the same can’t be said for Olivia Munn who plays Psylocke in this movie, I have disliked this actress in every role I have seen her in to date and the same goes for this one, she brings nothing to the movie and she constantly has a resting bitch face that suggests she doesn’t want to be there.
Like Civil War, X Men wasn’t anything like the comic it was based on and we didn’t get what we expected, but what we did end up getting was fresh and entertaining in it’s own right, so it’s okay that the film plots aren’t 100% faithful to the source material and that is something that Singer has been preaching since he made the first X Men movie back in 2001, which incidentally wasn’t based on any comic book and was a totally original plot. Also I love how because of the alternate timeline they are now free to do whatever they want in terms of the timing of certain events. For example, (and this is a slight spoiler, but the movie has been out for a while now so deal with it,) the Phoenix Force makes an appearance in this movie, which typically isn’t something that Jean Grey acquires until later in her life. Also the fact that we saw Wolverine escaping from Weapon X again, (again spoilers but this was in the trailers anyway so again, deal with it,) was awesome and this time we saw him being broken out by the young X Men and this time he had the comic book accurate electric headgear on while he escaped and I also loved how we saw him interact with young Jean Grey and regain some of his memories. This could also could be a change in the timeline caused by the butterfly effect as a result of the events of Days Of Future Past. This would also explain why the Magneto/Quicksilver, father/son relationship has never been discussed before, because if Apocalypse never awakened in the original X Men trilogy, then Quicksilver would have never went to the X Men mansion and therefore wouldn’t have come into contact with his dad during the final battle scene. Also Mystique looks like she is now a member and potential leader of the X Men team, rather than an enemy of the team like she was in the original movies when she was played by Rebecca Romjin. The other big change in the timeline is the death of Magneto’s family and even the fact that he had a wife and another child besides Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie, however I can also see why some people would take a disliking to it, as it does require a good amount of previous knowledge of the universe, but as an X Men fan, I loved it. Also another criticism I have read is that people aren’t happy with the length of the film, stating that it is too long and it drags in, but I actually thought the pacing was spot on. Anyway as an X Men fan, I loved my time would this movie and I look forward to seeing it again and I’d recommend it to anyone who is a mutant superhero fan.