Search
Search results
Crime and Parchment
9.0
Rate It
Book
Rare books librarian Juniper Blume knows this much...an ancient Celtic manuscript shouldn't be in a...
Circus Bim Bom: A Cold War Adventure
Book
1990. The Soviet Empire is unraveling. A circus has just arrived in America. When the first...
Historical Fiction Romantic Adventure Political Intrigue
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2652 KP) rated The Decorator Who Knew Too Much in Books
Mar 19, 2022
Did Madison Find a Dead Body?
It’s been seven months since we last saw Madison, and she’s been enjoying her new relationship with Hudson James. When he suggestions they take a working vacation to Palm Springs to help his brother-in-law with a project he has going on there, she accepts. However, their first day there, Madison spots a dead body below the surface of the river that runs near the project site. By the time the police show up, the body is gone. The delays to the project and the suspicion that Madison just imagined what she said she saw begin to make the trip stressful. How can Madison prove she was right?
As I expected, I was caught up in Madison’s latest adventure once I opened the book. The stakes are soon personal, and I loved watching how everything unfolded. The climax was suspenseful and answered all of our questions. We do get some updates on someone back in Dallas, but the focus is, naturally, on Madison and Hudson for this book. The rest of the characters are just as sharp. The Doris Day movie that inspired this title was the only one I had watched before starting to read this series, and I enjoyed picking up on the Easter eggs from the film in this book. Not that you need to be familiar with the film to enjoy this story. If you are looking for a creative series that will keep you glued to the page, this is the series for you.
As I expected, I was caught up in Madison’s latest adventure once I opened the book. The stakes are soon personal, and I loved watching how everything unfolded. The climax was suspenseful and answered all of our questions. We do get some updates on someone back in Dallas, but the focus is, naturally, on Madison and Hudson for this book. The rest of the characters are just as sharp. The Doris Day movie that inspired this title was the only one I had watched before starting to read this series, and I enjoyed picking up on the Easter eggs from the film in this book. Not that you need to be familiar with the film to enjoy this story. If you are looking for a creative series that will keep you glued to the page, this is the series for you.
ClareR (6256 KP) rated Moonlight and the Pearler’s Daughter in Books
Jul 19, 2022
Moonlight and the Pearler’s daughter ticked a lot of the boxes on my ‘favourite books’ list:
Historical fiction ✅
Set somewhere completely out of my previous knowledge ✅
A strong female character, operating in a difficult situation ✅
A bit of a mystery ✅ (I don’t really want to try and solve it, I just like the big reveal!)
As is often the case, the expectation of women in historical fiction is to stay at home, look after the house, wait to get married and have babies. But Eliza won’t stay at home when her father goes missing - she doesn’t assume he’s dead like the rest of the townsfolk.
There’s a real feeling of danger in a town where there appears to be no law keepers - not honest one’s, anyway. And if the corrupt, prejudiced townsfolk don’t get you, the climate and the wildlife (jellyfish, crocodiles!!) will.
This is a gripping, descriptive novel, that puts the reader firmly in Eliza’s world. I certainly had more of an idea of the hardships of living in NW Australia at this time. What will stay with me however, is Eliza’s determination to save her father and her family. She’s single-minded in her quest to find him, and determined not to let anyone else take the blame for his supposed death. It’s unnerving at times, when the attitudes of the white settlers towards the Aboriginals and other people of colour are starkly described.
A dark time in history, indeed.
And I’d highly recommend this. It’s wonderfully told.
Historical fiction ✅
Set somewhere completely out of my previous knowledge ✅
A strong female character, operating in a difficult situation ✅
A bit of a mystery ✅ (I don’t really want to try and solve it, I just like the big reveal!)
As is often the case, the expectation of women in historical fiction is to stay at home, look after the house, wait to get married and have babies. But Eliza won’t stay at home when her father goes missing - she doesn’t assume he’s dead like the rest of the townsfolk.
There’s a real feeling of danger in a town where there appears to be no law keepers - not honest one’s, anyway. And if the corrupt, prejudiced townsfolk don’t get you, the climate and the wildlife (jellyfish, crocodiles!!) will.
This is a gripping, descriptive novel, that puts the reader firmly in Eliza’s world. I certainly had more of an idea of the hardships of living in NW Australia at this time. What will stay with me however, is Eliza’s determination to save her father and her family. She’s single-minded in her quest to find him, and determined not to let anyone else take the blame for his supposed death. It’s unnerving at times, when the attitudes of the white settlers towards the Aboriginals and other people of colour are starkly described.
A dark time in history, indeed.
And I’d highly recommend this. It’s wonderfully told.
Midnight Captive (Bonded By Blood Vampire Chronicles #2)
8.0
Rate It
Book
CAILIN MAC DOUGAL has lived a dangerous life being the adopted daughter of vampire Broderick...
Historical Paranormal Romance
The Killer’s Wife
Book
A serial killer, a woman on the run, and an obsessive parole officer tangle in a psychological net...
Psychological Thriller Suspense
Temperature Rising
Book
A deadly secret. A dangerous game. How far will she go to expose the truth? Anna Freeman never...
Political Suspense Thriller
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Lestranger than fiction.
I must be one of the last people to watch this in the cinema, thanks to an irritating bout of sickness and – well – frankly total bloody apathy! For me this is the franchise that nobody asked for and nobody wanted. (Well, “nobody” is probably overstating the case, since there is probably a bunch of Potterheads out there who are shouting at me right now). But judging from the opinion of my daughter-in-law, who could win “Mastermind” with her knowledge of the original Potter series as her specialist subject, I am certainly not alone in my lack of enthusiasm.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
Jamie (131 KP) rated Here and Gone in Books
Jul 26, 2017
Engrossing story line (2 more)
Well-developed characters
Good female relationships
Several plot holes (1 more)
Mildly frustrating main character
A parent's worst nightmare
This book may be one of the most compelling reads that I’ve had in a while. Here and Gone is the story of a woman trying to escape an abusive marriage that finds herself in handcuffs and her children taken away by suspicious cops. It’s every parent’s worst nightmare. The opening chapters reminded me of some terrifying cases that I’ve read about innocent people being pulled over by corrupt or phony police officers.
The narrative swaps between characters throughout the story, sometimes swinging into the main two character’s pasts to flesh out their personalities. I really liked Danny, though I’ll admit that he seemed like a bit of an Asian stereotype to me, and being Asian American myself I wasn’t sure how I felt about it. His role in the story was cool but also seemed a little out of place. Audra I wish I could say that I liked her more, but her attitude in some of the flashback chapters really bothered me. My heart did break for her character, however, stuck in an abusive marriage with an enabler, with several chapters detailing her struggle with drug addiction.
I love the serious amount of woman power in this book that highlights the importance of female relationships. There are just certain things that many women know and understand about each other. This book was a heartfelt reminder about how vital it is for women to lift each other up, rather than tearing each other down. It was almost always female characters that would see what was happening to Audra and helped when she needed it the most. This was a major highlight for me in the story.
On the other hand though, I had to cut the rating down a little bit due to some pretty glaring plot holes that kept making me stop and ask my husband about law or the standard policies that are followed in any investigation. There were little things I noticed that just didn’t seem right and it would pull me out of my immersion in the novel.
Maybe it’s just me, but I would imagine that if a suspect in a missing person’s case were to implicate someone, even if it was a member of law enforcement, of abducting the kids and threatening her into taking the blame, wouldn’t the FBI be at least mildly suspicious? Question the officers involved, perhaps monitor their activity, separate them from the case, or put them on administrative leave? It would only make sense to me that the officers in question are too close to the case and should be taken off of it, but that wasn’t what happened. One cop had full access to the suspect, to police resources, and was still involved in the investigation. The other cop, well, nobody seemed to care about her one bit, or really noticed her absence. In fact, the FBI in general seemed pretty impotent in this book and that just didn’t seem normal to me.
All that aside, I really enjoyed this book. I was completely absorbed in the story from the first page and I couldn’t put it down, devouring it quickly over a period of about two days. I’ll definitely be checking out some more of the author’s work in the future.
The narrative swaps between characters throughout the story, sometimes swinging into the main two character’s pasts to flesh out their personalities. I really liked Danny, though I’ll admit that he seemed like a bit of an Asian stereotype to me, and being Asian American myself I wasn’t sure how I felt about it. His role in the story was cool but also seemed a little out of place. Audra I wish I could say that I liked her more, but her attitude in some of the flashback chapters really bothered me. My heart did break for her character, however, stuck in an abusive marriage with an enabler, with several chapters detailing her struggle with drug addiction.
I love the serious amount of woman power in this book that highlights the importance of female relationships. There are just certain things that many women know and understand about each other. This book was a heartfelt reminder about how vital it is for women to lift each other up, rather than tearing each other down. It was almost always female characters that would see what was happening to Audra and helped when she needed it the most. This was a major highlight for me in the story.
On the other hand though, I had to cut the rating down a little bit due to some pretty glaring plot holes that kept making me stop and ask my husband about law or the standard policies that are followed in any investigation. There were little things I noticed that just didn’t seem right and it would pull me out of my immersion in the novel.
Maybe it’s just me, but I would imagine that if a suspect in a missing person’s case were to implicate someone, even if it was a member of law enforcement, of abducting the kids and threatening her into taking the blame, wouldn’t the FBI be at least mildly suspicious? Question the officers involved, perhaps monitor their activity, separate them from the case, or put them on administrative leave? It would only make sense to me that the officers in question are too close to the case and should be taken off of it, but that wasn’t what happened. One cop had full access to the suspect, to police resources, and was still involved in the investigation. The other cop, well, nobody seemed to care about her one bit, or really noticed her absence. In fact, the FBI in general seemed pretty impotent in this book and that just didn’t seem normal to me.
All that aside, I really enjoyed this book. I was completely absorbed in the story from the first page and I couldn’t put it down, devouring it quickly over a period of about two days. I’ll definitely be checking out some more of the author’s work in the future.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Gotham - Season 1 in TV
Jun 20, 2018
Cast (5 more)
Character development
Characters
Setting
Great Drama
Gripping storyline
Some of the more extreme comic book costumes (2 more)
Some of the characters
Certain plot elements that take away the drama (mostly if you've read or seen what happens next)
Imagine a Gotham without Batman....
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first watched it when it first aired, I was sceptical and yet excited and then I felt let down. Gotham at first was a great cop show but what annoyed me was the fact that all these things that we knew to happen when Batman was around, were happening when Bruce Wayne was still a child and my brain couldn't wrap around the idea let alone get behind it, but at the same time I didn't know what I was expecting. Still I watched the first two seasons because I wanted to see some of my favourite villains and characters brought to life and I love Ben McKenzie as James Gordon!
However upon recently returning to watching Gotham I have come to see it in a new light and adore the show to pieces as I should have from the start. Gotham isn't about Batman, it's not about Bruce Wayne (not fully anyways). I see now that Gotham is a concept of a question:
"What if these villains we're here before Batman? Leaving only the police to deal with the extremity of Gotham most famous rogues!"
What makes this show so good is that we see a young, reckless and a little out of character Jim Gordon, who is even willing to bend the law to the point of breaking to get Justice. The drama is intense and you never can tell when Jim goes off on one, if he'll restrain himself to the law and doing things by the book. In a way there's a lot of Batman within Jim Gordon himself which makes the show even better.
Some of the characters annoy me at times. I liked Fish Mooney at first because she was dangerous and twisted, but when you bring a character back so many times you just lose interest and they're no longer a threat to the drama of their character development because you leave yourself with the only two viable questions: "will she ever stay dead?" And "when will she die for good?" I just don't seem to be concerned for her anymore like I did in the first season when she was double crossing Falcone. When everything was fresh and you didn't know if a stray bullet might hit her finally or if an Assassin was in her midst at all times waiting to strike. The drama for me didn't vanish but certainly lessened in later seasons.
The character development of characters like Bruce Wayne, Jim Gordon, Edward Nigma and Oswald Cobblepot are brilliantly written. With Bruce becoming a stronger minded young man in season two and Oswald's rise to power. I particularly loved Nigmas transformation into a killer because of the way it was set out, with the first murder being slightly on purpose, the second a complete accident, the third being to protect himself against discovery and the rest being a complete turn around into someone who discovers he enjoys the task of killing someone. The writers are excellent when it comes to development of characters and plot.
Can't wait for the new season and I hope they go out with a bang!
However upon recently returning to watching Gotham I have come to see it in a new light and adore the show to pieces as I should have from the start. Gotham isn't about Batman, it's not about Bruce Wayne (not fully anyways). I see now that Gotham is a concept of a question:
"What if these villains we're here before Batman? Leaving only the police to deal with the extremity of Gotham most famous rogues!"
What makes this show so good is that we see a young, reckless and a little out of character Jim Gordon, who is even willing to bend the law to the point of breaking to get Justice. The drama is intense and you never can tell when Jim goes off on one, if he'll restrain himself to the law and doing things by the book. In a way there's a lot of Batman within Jim Gordon himself which makes the show even better.
Some of the characters annoy me at times. I liked Fish Mooney at first because she was dangerous and twisted, but when you bring a character back so many times you just lose interest and they're no longer a threat to the drama of their character development because you leave yourself with the only two viable questions: "will she ever stay dead?" And "when will she die for good?" I just don't seem to be concerned for her anymore like I did in the first season when she was double crossing Falcone. When everything was fresh and you didn't know if a stray bullet might hit her finally or if an Assassin was in her midst at all times waiting to strike. The drama for me didn't vanish but certainly lessened in later seasons.
The character development of characters like Bruce Wayne, Jim Gordon, Edward Nigma and Oswald Cobblepot are brilliantly written. With Bruce becoming a stronger minded young man in season two and Oswald's rise to power. I particularly loved Nigmas transformation into a killer because of the way it was set out, with the first murder being slightly on purpose, the second a complete accident, the third being to protect himself against discovery and the rest being a complete turn around into someone who discovers he enjoys the task of killing someone. The writers are excellent when it comes to development of characters and plot.
Can't wait for the new season and I hope they go out with a bang!