Search
Search results
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated Fallen (Fallen, #1) in Books
Dec 12, 2018
This bestselling genre-crossing book has a captivating start and end, and I’m already looking forward to reading the next in the series!
The gist of the book is given away on its cover, so there’s no element of surprise here. It’s a love story between a human girl and an angel.
Although it clearly lies under the paranormal genre, the book is predominantly a romance, and the characters, even though they’ve been alive centuries, are presented as come-of-age teenagers, placing the book under the young adult genre also. It also comes under the urban fantasy genre, with its edgy beginnings at a reform school.
The prologue is enchanting with its snippet of the angel’s love for the girl in her previous life. The rest of the story is written from the viewpoint of the girl, Luce. Lucy would be your typical, if a little nervous, American girl, if it weren’t for her visions of black shadows that seem to appear only to her. With no reasonable explanation for the shadows, she was put on anti-psychotic medication.
Her story begins when she’s placed at a reform school, following the death of a friend that for some reason she has little recollection of, and (perhaps therefore) blames herself for. As you can imagine, the reform school has some lively, dramatic and intriguing characters! A love triangle is sparked on her first day. There’s the somehow familiar Daniel, who smiles, then flips her the bird, and the charming charismatic Cam, who can’t wait to spend time with her.
Luce finds herself drawn to Daniel, but he keeps giving her the brush off. Cam meanwhile takes a special interest in Luce. Once Luce has her “first” kiss with Daniel, she decides to meet Cam to apologise for leading him on. However, she ends up kissing Cam and the black shadows come after them. Daniel’s identity as a fallen angel is revealed to Luce and a battle (rather than their previous fist fight) begins. Luce flees for safety, only to find herself in further danger!
The obvious comparison here is with Stephanie Meyers Twilight Saga, which has a similar love triangle, but with a vampire and werewolf rather than fallen angels. Lauren Kate’s writing is not as good as Stephanie Meyers’, but is just as good as some of the other YA paranormal authors such as L J Smith, and Cassandra Clare. Although the romance is the central feature of the book, there are no erotic scenes.
I watched the film before reading the book, and found the film quite forgettable - but the book had me hooked! My interest in the next book in the series isn’t so much for the romance between Luce and Daniel, but for the inclusion of the other characters and the clear impression that there’s a lot more to the story than what’s been discovered so far!
The gist of the book is given away on its cover, so there’s no element of surprise here. It’s a love story between a human girl and an angel.
Although it clearly lies under the paranormal genre, the book is predominantly a romance, and the characters, even though they’ve been alive centuries, are presented as come-of-age teenagers, placing the book under the young adult genre also. It also comes under the urban fantasy genre, with its edgy beginnings at a reform school.
The prologue is enchanting with its snippet of the angel’s love for the girl in her previous life. The rest of the story is written from the viewpoint of the girl, Luce. Lucy would be your typical, if a little nervous, American girl, if it weren’t for her visions of black shadows that seem to appear only to her. With no reasonable explanation for the shadows, she was put on anti-psychotic medication.
Her story begins when she’s placed at a reform school, following the death of a friend that for some reason she has little recollection of, and (perhaps therefore) blames herself for. As you can imagine, the reform school has some lively, dramatic and intriguing characters! A love triangle is sparked on her first day. There’s the somehow familiar Daniel, who smiles, then flips her the bird, and the charming charismatic Cam, who can’t wait to spend time with her.
Luce finds herself drawn to Daniel, but he keeps giving her the brush off. Cam meanwhile takes a special interest in Luce. Once Luce has her “first” kiss with Daniel, she decides to meet Cam to apologise for leading him on. However, she ends up kissing Cam and the black shadows come after them. Daniel’s identity as a fallen angel is revealed to Luce and a battle (rather than their previous fist fight) begins. Luce flees for safety, only to find herself in further danger!
The obvious comparison here is with Stephanie Meyers Twilight Saga, which has a similar love triangle, but with a vampire and werewolf rather than fallen angels. Lauren Kate’s writing is not as good as Stephanie Meyers’, but is just as good as some of the other YA paranormal authors such as L J Smith, and Cassandra Clare. Although the romance is the central feature of the book, there are no erotic scenes.
I watched the film before reading the book, and found the film quite forgettable - but the book had me hooked! My interest in the next book in the series isn’t so much for the romance between Luce and Daniel, but for the inclusion of the other characters and the clear impression that there’s a lot more to the story than what’s been discovered so far!
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review</i>
Everyone is constantly reminded to never judge a book by its cover. The book jacket designer of Steven Camden’s contemporary novel <i>Tape</i> has done an excellent job using colour and hand-rendered images to capture people’s attention; the story, however, remained rather dull in comparison.
The novel is split into two time periods, twenty years apart. In 2013, Ameliah is struggling to cope with the sudden loss of her mother, and shortly after her father, whilst she moves in with her Nan. In the spare bedroom lies a mammoth job of boxes to sort out containing all of her parents’ belongings. Ameliah first discovers an ancient boom box along with a large collection of music tapes. Amongst these is an unlabeled one, and when she plays it she can hear a young boy talking to her – he also says her mother’s name, “Eve”.
Twenty years earlier it is 1993 and thirteen-year-old Ryan is keeping a verbal diary as he records himself talking to his mother who has unfortunately passed away. His father has remarried and Ryan also has to struggle to live with stepbrother Nathan who seems to be determined to create a scene at every given opportunity. On a day out with his best friend Liam, he meets an Irish girl named Eve who he instantly falls in love with, but is devastated to learn that she will be returning home to Ireland soon.
It is clear from the beginning that Ryan and the voice on Ameliah’s tape are one and the same person; but the question is how are they connected? The connection is emphasized by the similarities in the lives of these two youngsters. Ryan meets a girl… Ameliah meets a boy… They both have to learn to deal with certain people being in their lives. For Ryan that is Nathan but for Ameliah that is a stranger who turns up one day claiming that he was a friend of her father.
After a while the storyline becomes predictable, and despite suspecting a plot twist, there is not one. The characters come across as a bit childish and annoying, which makes them difficult to relate to - although that may not be an issue with younger readers. Twelve and thirteen are far too young to be thinking about romantic relationships, especially for a boy in the early nineties: a flaw in the storyline.
Camden has done well to reduce the potential confusion of changing from one character and decade to another by using two different typefaces, so there is no issue there. But, overall it was rather disappointing. It was a great idea for a narrative with so much potential, however it fell flat and dreary through the writing.
Everyone is constantly reminded to never judge a book by its cover. The book jacket designer of Steven Camden’s contemporary novel <i>Tape</i> has done an excellent job using colour and hand-rendered images to capture people’s attention; the story, however, remained rather dull in comparison.
The novel is split into two time periods, twenty years apart. In 2013, Ameliah is struggling to cope with the sudden loss of her mother, and shortly after her father, whilst she moves in with her Nan. In the spare bedroom lies a mammoth job of boxes to sort out containing all of her parents’ belongings. Ameliah first discovers an ancient boom box along with a large collection of music tapes. Amongst these is an unlabeled one, and when she plays it she can hear a young boy talking to her – he also says her mother’s name, “Eve”.
Twenty years earlier it is 1993 and thirteen-year-old Ryan is keeping a verbal diary as he records himself talking to his mother who has unfortunately passed away. His father has remarried and Ryan also has to struggle to live with stepbrother Nathan who seems to be determined to create a scene at every given opportunity. On a day out with his best friend Liam, he meets an Irish girl named Eve who he instantly falls in love with, but is devastated to learn that she will be returning home to Ireland soon.
It is clear from the beginning that Ryan and the voice on Ameliah’s tape are one and the same person; but the question is how are they connected? The connection is emphasized by the similarities in the lives of these two youngsters. Ryan meets a girl… Ameliah meets a boy… They both have to learn to deal with certain people being in their lives. For Ryan that is Nathan but for Ameliah that is a stranger who turns up one day claiming that he was a friend of her father.
After a while the storyline becomes predictable, and despite suspecting a plot twist, there is not one. The characters come across as a bit childish and annoying, which makes them difficult to relate to - although that may not be an issue with younger readers. Twelve and thirteen are far too young to be thinking about romantic relationships, especially for a boy in the early nineties: a flaw in the storyline.
Camden has done well to reduce the potential confusion of changing from one character and decade to another by using two different typefaces, so there is no issue there. But, overall it was rather disappointing. It was a great idea for a narrative with so much potential, however it fell flat and dreary through the writing.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Kingdom in Books
Oct 17, 2019
“Where Happily Ever After is not just a promise, but a rule”
I mean with a tag line like that you can’t not be drawn in by this book! If that doesn’t grab you then the gorgeous cover art will.
Once you get past the wonderful aesthetics; the ‘Disney x Westworld x Big Little Lies’ reality that Jess Rothenberg conjures is sure to captivate you. Rothenberg manages to describe her Kingdom in such minute detail without it seeming contrite: the brazen references to meet and greets, monorails and “the park” are like catnip to a Disney geek like myself; whilst the proclamation from the outset that a crime has occurred appeals to the (slightly) more mature side of this 32 year old bookworm.
The Kingdom is a magical place where dreams come true: or is it? The star attractions: the princesses; are beautiful, perfect, always say the right thing and…are Artificial Intelligence. Their sophisticated technology, wireless signals and encyclopaedic knowledge ensure the princesses are as perfect as possible but it quickly becomes apparent that the princesses are, in fact, prisoners: constantly under surveillance, tracked by GPS implants in their wrists and strapped to their beds at “downtime”.
Ana is our princess and storyteller, opening her world to the reader and introducing us to her “sisters”, “mother” and “father” as well as those who have slightly less favourable views towards the AI, or Fantasists as they are known. There is no doubt that Ana is advanced in comparison to other Fantasists that we meet: she is aware of the park’s wireless blind spots and admits she becomes weary of some songs, unruly children and fathers with wandering eyes. Ironically, Ana is a profoundly human character with whom the reader immediately allies themselves with. Despite clearly being a suspect in the ongoing murder trial, I can’t see any reader convicting Ana. On the contrary, it is a real testament to Jess Rothenberg’s writing that the reader identifies with the Fantasists over and above every human character in her novel. Even Owen, the main human character, is never entirely trustworthy and does not reveal his intentions readily.
The format of The Kingdom is unlike anything else out there at the moment, in my opinion. The mix of prose, advertisements, interviews, trial transcripts and even apps allow our Fantasist to tell her story but also allows the reader to meet personnel and witness events that Ana would never see. This aspect is crucial to the murder mystery vibe of The Kingdom and Rothenberg leaves the reader guessing right to the very end and begging for a sequel.
Rothenberg’s kingdom is quick to show its murkier, thornier side. Those who question their surroundings are made an example of; nature is manipulated for entertainment and nothing is what it seems. If you haven’t guessed by now, I absolutely adored this book. It had me gripped from beginning to end. If you read one Disney book this year- read this one!
I mean with a tag line like that you can’t not be drawn in by this book! If that doesn’t grab you then the gorgeous cover art will.
Once you get past the wonderful aesthetics; the ‘Disney x Westworld x Big Little Lies’ reality that Jess Rothenberg conjures is sure to captivate you. Rothenberg manages to describe her Kingdom in such minute detail without it seeming contrite: the brazen references to meet and greets, monorails and “the park” are like catnip to a Disney geek like myself; whilst the proclamation from the outset that a crime has occurred appeals to the (slightly) more mature side of this 32 year old bookworm.
The Kingdom is a magical place where dreams come true: or is it? The star attractions: the princesses; are beautiful, perfect, always say the right thing and…are Artificial Intelligence. Their sophisticated technology, wireless signals and encyclopaedic knowledge ensure the princesses are as perfect as possible but it quickly becomes apparent that the princesses are, in fact, prisoners: constantly under surveillance, tracked by GPS implants in their wrists and strapped to their beds at “downtime”.
Ana is our princess and storyteller, opening her world to the reader and introducing us to her “sisters”, “mother” and “father” as well as those who have slightly less favourable views towards the AI, or Fantasists as they are known. There is no doubt that Ana is advanced in comparison to other Fantasists that we meet: she is aware of the park’s wireless blind spots and admits she becomes weary of some songs, unruly children and fathers with wandering eyes. Ironically, Ana is a profoundly human character with whom the reader immediately allies themselves with. Despite clearly being a suspect in the ongoing murder trial, I can’t see any reader convicting Ana. On the contrary, it is a real testament to Jess Rothenberg’s writing that the reader identifies with the Fantasists over and above every human character in her novel. Even Owen, the main human character, is never entirely trustworthy and does not reveal his intentions readily.
The format of The Kingdom is unlike anything else out there at the moment, in my opinion. The mix of prose, advertisements, interviews, trial transcripts and even apps allow our Fantasist to tell her story but also allows the reader to meet personnel and witness events that Ana would never see. This aspect is crucial to the murder mystery vibe of The Kingdom and Rothenberg leaves the reader guessing right to the very end and begging for a sequel.
Rothenberg’s kingdom is quick to show its murkier, thornier side. Those who question their surroundings are made an example of; nature is manipulated for entertainment and nothing is what it seems. If you haven’t guessed by now, I absolutely adored this book. It had me gripped from beginning to end. If you read one Disney book this year- read this one!
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
About 85% of this reboot of the popular 90s show Power Rangers is quite a broody and charming enough story about a group of five (mostly outcast) teenagers finding a bond and friendship after discovering that they've be given superpowers. This is spliced with the odd training montage of them all learning how to harness their new found powers.
It pretty straightforward, and thanks the main cast, it's fairly enjoyable.
Lead by Jason (Stranger Things' Dacre Montgomery), the five friends are probably the main positive about the film.
As the movie draws on, we are teased with just enough Power Rangers material to keep the intrigue afloat - the presence of Zordon (Bryan Cranston), Alpha 5 (Bill Hader) and Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks), glimpses of the Zords and so on, but the narrative never strays too far from this core theme of strength through friendship.
That is until the final act of course...
I'll admit that I felt a swelling of excitement when the Power Rangers finally appeared in full armour, kicking the shit out of faceless CGI henchman, but it's at this point that director Dean Israelite goes FULL POWER RANGERS. We even get the classic theme tune as the Rangers charge towards Goldar (eye burning CGI, but kind of cool) and Rita in their Zords (also kind of cool) but here in lies the main problem with the film as a whole.
The nostalgia is laid on so thick that it feels like a completely different film. With the first 3/4 being somewhat grounded in realism (sort of), with serious themes and relatable human characters, the final act of flat out Power Rangers absurdity doesn't quite gel. I have no problem with either approach, but I feel like maybe the writers should have picked one and stuck with it.
The well developed teenagers that we've spent and hour and half with at this point are suddenly wise cracking and quipping like there's no tomorrow. The big climatic battle looks ok, but it has that really overplayed Kanye West song obnoxiously blasting throughout (which just gave me *shudder* Suicide Squad vibes), and after being built up to be a genuinely threatening villain, Rita is easily dispatched by a big CGI bitchslap into CGI space, by the big CGI hand of the big CGI Megazord (still kind of cool).
It's just a little meh.
I have fond memories of Power Rangers from my childhood, and I realise that this modern retelling is also aimed at a younger audience, and in that respect I'm sure it's very entertaining, and I give credit to the writers for touching upon more adult issues, but overall, I wish it had been better. Power Rangers is silly, but it does genuinely have scope to be an epic franchise.
Final note - the running Krispy Kreme joke got old very quickly 🖕
It pretty straightforward, and thanks the main cast, it's fairly enjoyable.
Lead by Jason (Stranger Things' Dacre Montgomery), the five friends are probably the main positive about the film.
As the movie draws on, we are teased with just enough Power Rangers material to keep the intrigue afloat - the presence of Zordon (Bryan Cranston), Alpha 5 (Bill Hader) and Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks), glimpses of the Zords and so on, but the narrative never strays too far from this core theme of strength through friendship.
That is until the final act of course...
I'll admit that I felt a swelling of excitement when the Power Rangers finally appeared in full armour, kicking the shit out of faceless CGI henchman, but it's at this point that director Dean Israelite goes FULL POWER RANGERS. We even get the classic theme tune as the Rangers charge towards Goldar (eye burning CGI, but kind of cool) and Rita in their Zords (also kind of cool) but here in lies the main problem with the film as a whole.
The nostalgia is laid on so thick that it feels like a completely different film. With the first 3/4 being somewhat grounded in realism (sort of), with serious themes and relatable human characters, the final act of flat out Power Rangers absurdity doesn't quite gel. I have no problem with either approach, but I feel like maybe the writers should have picked one and stuck with it.
The well developed teenagers that we've spent and hour and half with at this point are suddenly wise cracking and quipping like there's no tomorrow. The big climatic battle looks ok, but it has that really overplayed Kanye West song obnoxiously blasting throughout (which just gave me *shudder* Suicide Squad vibes), and after being built up to be a genuinely threatening villain, Rita is easily dispatched by a big CGI bitchslap into CGI space, by the big CGI hand of the big CGI Megazord (still kind of cool).
It's just a little meh.
I have fond memories of Power Rangers from my childhood, and I realise that this modern retelling is also aimed at a younger audience, and in that respect I'm sure it's very entertaining, and I give credit to the writers for touching upon more adult issues, but overall, I wish it had been better. Power Rangers is silly, but it does genuinely have scope to be an epic franchise.
Final note - the running Krispy Kreme joke got old very quickly 🖕
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Apr 8, 2020
Well Worth Watching
I'll start this review by stating for the record - I LIKE BLAKE LIVELY. I think the former Gossip Girl star is extremely watchable and interesting - and in the right role, can take over a film.
And...in A SIMPLE FAVOR...she is in the right role.
Also starring Anne Kendrick (INTO THE WOODS), A SIMPLE FAVOR tells the tale of a suburban mother (Kendrick) who forms a friendship with a lively (no pun intended) working mom (Lively) - from "The City" no less - who asks her friend for "A Simple Favor" - watch her child while she tends to some urgent business. When the working Mom goes missing, the suburban Mom starts snooping into what happened.
Directed by Paul Feig (BRIDESMAIDS), A SIMPLE FAVOR finds itself in a bit of a "no man's land" of style and genre. Is it a made for TV Movie like BIG LITTLE LIES (no...it's ambition and production style is more ambitious than that). Is it a "Major Motion Picture" a la GONE GIRL (no...it's not that ambitious). Is it a satire on the suburban Mom (partially), a whodunnit (partially), a mystery (partially) a black comedy (partially).
And that's what is in this film's favor - and it's biggest issue. It's hard to define and pin down and the feel of the film floats all over the place, as do the performances of the leading ladies.
Anna Kendrick is perfectly well suited to play the frumpy suburban Mom, Stephanie, who's underlying unhappiness is masked by the perma-grin and energy of that Mom who volunteers for EVERYTHING at school. She is more than balanced by Lively's scene-stealing performance as Emily the working Mom from NYC that doesn't take crap - or orders - from anybody. Their scenes together are uneven and unbalanced - and that is perfect for what Stephanie is going through. She encounters a force of nature in Emily and is just trying to hang on for dear life.
And there, again, is where the issues of this film (and it's strengths) show up. Sometimes - it seems - that Stephanie is getting a foothold, only to slip and fall. But then she gets her foothold stronger and a whole new character emerges, only to have it slip again...and then she is SNARKY...and slips back to mousey...and then she is CLEVER...and slips back to mousey...and the she...
You get the idea. It keeps the audience guessing and off-guard, but the change in tone hurts the overall flow of the film.
It, ultimately, becomes a fairly clever whoddunit that had me guessing (for the most part) until the end, so I have to admit - I ended up enjoying it - mostly because of Lively's energy.
Letter Grade: B+ (well worth your time to check out)
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
And...in A SIMPLE FAVOR...she is in the right role.
Also starring Anne Kendrick (INTO THE WOODS), A SIMPLE FAVOR tells the tale of a suburban mother (Kendrick) who forms a friendship with a lively (no pun intended) working mom (Lively) - from "The City" no less - who asks her friend for "A Simple Favor" - watch her child while she tends to some urgent business. When the working Mom goes missing, the suburban Mom starts snooping into what happened.
Directed by Paul Feig (BRIDESMAIDS), A SIMPLE FAVOR finds itself in a bit of a "no man's land" of style and genre. Is it a made for TV Movie like BIG LITTLE LIES (no...it's ambition and production style is more ambitious than that). Is it a "Major Motion Picture" a la GONE GIRL (no...it's not that ambitious). Is it a satire on the suburban Mom (partially), a whodunnit (partially), a mystery (partially) a black comedy (partially).
And that's what is in this film's favor - and it's biggest issue. It's hard to define and pin down and the feel of the film floats all over the place, as do the performances of the leading ladies.
Anna Kendrick is perfectly well suited to play the frumpy suburban Mom, Stephanie, who's underlying unhappiness is masked by the perma-grin and energy of that Mom who volunteers for EVERYTHING at school. She is more than balanced by Lively's scene-stealing performance as Emily the working Mom from NYC that doesn't take crap - or orders - from anybody. Their scenes together are uneven and unbalanced - and that is perfect for what Stephanie is going through. She encounters a force of nature in Emily and is just trying to hang on for dear life.
And there, again, is where the issues of this film (and it's strengths) show up. Sometimes - it seems - that Stephanie is getting a foothold, only to slip and fall. But then she gets her foothold stronger and a whole new character emerges, only to have it slip again...and then she is SNARKY...and slips back to mousey...and then she is CLEVER...and slips back to mousey...and the she...
You get the idea. It keeps the audience guessing and off-guard, but the change in tone hurts the overall flow of the film.
It, ultimately, becomes a fairly clever whoddunit that had me guessing (for the most part) until the end, so I have to admit - I ended up enjoying it - mostly because of Lively's energy.
Letter Grade: B+ (well worth your time to check out)
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Stable Isotope Forensics: Methods and Forensic Applications of Stable Isotope Analysis
Book
The number-one guide, internationally, to all aspects of forensic isotope analysis, thoroughly...
Once - Quality dating
Dating, Lifestyle and Social Networking
4.5
Rate It
App
Once – the only dating app that brings you handpicked quality matches everyday. Tired of swiping...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) in Movies
Feb 23, 2021
Kaluuya in an Oscar worthy performance
Ever since Daniel Kaluuya burst onto the scene in 2017’s GET OUT, he has been an actor to watch - one who’s brilliance bursts off the screen in whatever project he is in.
This brilliance shines brightly in his latest effort JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH that teams him up with his GET OUT co-star LaKeith Stanfield in the true story of 1960’s Chicago Black Panther leader Fred Hampton (Kaluuya) and his friend/Security Chief, Bill O’Neal (Stanfield) who just happens to be an FBI informant.
Directed and Written by Shaka King, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH tells an important, under-told story of the African-American struggle in the wild, changing times of America in the 1960’s.
Kaluuya’s performance as Hampton is up to the challenge of a story this big and bold - his Fred Hampton is charismatic and involving, drawing all into his world. He’s a bigger-than-life icon that demands attention whenever Kaluuya/Hampton is on the stage. I expect an Oscar nomination (at least) for this performance.
The problem with this film is that Kaluuya’s Hampton is such a strong and commanding presence that the rest of the story and characters pale in comparison to him.
Such is the case with Stanfield’s portrayal of O’Neal. I really like LaKeith Stanfield as a performer and was really looking forward to seeing him and Kaluuya go toe-to-toe, but his character is swallowed up in the largess of the Hampton character and, so, I never connected or sympathized with him. I don’t blame this on the actor, I blame this on the script and the direction of King, making the O’Neal character weak - especially when he is up against Hampton.
The character/actor that WAS able to hold their own with Kaluuya/Hampton is Dominique Fishback as Hampton’s lover (and mother of his child), Deborah Johnson. The scenes of Hampton and Johnson together were sharp and interesting - perhaps because Hampton was toned down, but also because Fishback’s portrayal of Johnson was strong enough to stand up to Kaluuya’s portrayal of Hampton.
In addition, Kaluuya’s performance is so strong in this film that it is noticeable when it is absent, so when his character is sent to prison (and disappears) for the middle 1/3 of this film, the movie drags considerably.
Finally, the film hits a plateau at about the 4/5 mark and doesn’t really build to a crescendo at the end - an ending that should be powerful, but just sorts of lies there.
All-in-all, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH is worth seeing for the powerful performance by Daniel Kaluuya that more than makes up for the shortcomings of the rest of the film.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This brilliance shines brightly in his latest effort JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH that teams him up with his GET OUT co-star LaKeith Stanfield in the true story of 1960’s Chicago Black Panther leader Fred Hampton (Kaluuya) and his friend/Security Chief, Bill O’Neal (Stanfield) who just happens to be an FBI informant.
Directed and Written by Shaka King, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH tells an important, under-told story of the African-American struggle in the wild, changing times of America in the 1960’s.
Kaluuya’s performance as Hampton is up to the challenge of a story this big and bold - his Fred Hampton is charismatic and involving, drawing all into his world. He’s a bigger-than-life icon that demands attention whenever Kaluuya/Hampton is on the stage. I expect an Oscar nomination (at least) for this performance.
The problem with this film is that Kaluuya’s Hampton is such a strong and commanding presence that the rest of the story and characters pale in comparison to him.
Such is the case with Stanfield’s portrayal of O’Neal. I really like LaKeith Stanfield as a performer and was really looking forward to seeing him and Kaluuya go toe-to-toe, but his character is swallowed up in the largess of the Hampton character and, so, I never connected or sympathized with him. I don’t blame this on the actor, I blame this on the script and the direction of King, making the O’Neal character weak - especially when he is up against Hampton.
The character/actor that WAS able to hold their own with Kaluuya/Hampton is Dominique Fishback as Hampton’s lover (and mother of his child), Deborah Johnson. The scenes of Hampton and Johnson together were sharp and interesting - perhaps because Hampton was toned down, but also because Fishback’s portrayal of Johnson was strong enough to stand up to Kaluuya’s portrayal of Hampton.
In addition, Kaluuya’s performance is so strong in this film that it is noticeable when it is absent, so when his character is sent to prison (and disappears) for the middle 1/3 of this film, the movie drags considerably.
Finally, the film hits a plateau at about the 4/5 mark and doesn’t really build to a crescendo at the end - an ending that should be powerful, but just sorts of lies there.
All-in-all, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH is worth seeing for the powerful performance by Daniel Kaluuya that more than makes up for the shortcomings of the rest of the film.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Everything but the Truth in Books
Sep 24, 2020
I really don’t know, what I was expecting from this book, but it left me absolutely confused. I still can’t decide if I liked it or not. I enjoyed the story, but why did it make me feel bored at the same time?
This is a story told by Rachel, about the secrets Jack was hiding. But the funny part is, Rachel has her own secrets, which she is hiding from Jack. So there are so many lies in this book, that I am wondering, how these two even a couple. When Rachel found out that Jake is hiding something, she went all the way into finding it out. Full homemade detective: snooping around, checking emails, ordering court material, everything to find out what Jack is hiding. Why? Because Jack is not telling the truth, but amending it, to fit his needs. What she finds out shocks her, but leaves her confused as well. Is he really guilty?
I really enjoyed the determination of this little investigation. I liked the ways Rachel was seeking the truth, it was interesting to watch, and quite relatable. Most probably we all checked our other half’s phone, or observed their actions during some situations. The book was time travelling between past and present. The way author incorporated Rachel’s story from the past, with one of her cancer patients, was very amusing. I liked the way she described her feelings towards the boy, it was beautiful.
This book is full of decisions, and really difficult ones. The ones regarding Jack were quite repetitive to be honest, just like the whole wish to find everything out. It was written in so many places, why Rachel wants to know the truth, that it made it boring. Another thing, which was not my favourite, was her decision, which she should’ve taken after finding out the truth, that confusion was so dragged, that I wanted to shout “Either you want him or not, stop beating about the bush!”.
The themes used in this book where quite interesting, and they made me question myself, what I would’ve done in Jack’s place? Or, was Rachel’s decision right regarding her cancer patient? What I would’ve done in her place? That’s why this book made me confused, because it has really deep meaning and interesting topics, but it was boring at the same time.
The writing style of this novel is easy to read, with lovely and short chapters. This book didn’t offer any twists or turns in my opinion, and kind of just plodded along. Whatever twists or turns supposedly were in this book, were really predictable, even the ending of the book was predictable. So to conclude, I enjoyed some of the parts of this book, but I think it could’ve been better. Doctors, nurses, or people who have someone suffering from cancer would find this book close to their hearts and maybe a good read…
Was given this book by publisher and NetGalley for honest review.
This is a story told by Rachel, about the secrets Jack was hiding. But the funny part is, Rachel has her own secrets, which she is hiding from Jack. So there are so many lies in this book, that I am wondering, how these two even a couple. When Rachel found out that Jake is hiding something, she went all the way into finding it out. Full homemade detective: snooping around, checking emails, ordering court material, everything to find out what Jack is hiding. Why? Because Jack is not telling the truth, but amending it, to fit his needs. What she finds out shocks her, but leaves her confused as well. Is he really guilty?
I really enjoyed the determination of this little investigation. I liked the ways Rachel was seeking the truth, it was interesting to watch, and quite relatable. Most probably we all checked our other half’s phone, or observed their actions during some situations. The book was time travelling between past and present. The way author incorporated Rachel’s story from the past, with one of her cancer patients, was very amusing. I liked the way she described her feelings towards the boy, it was beautiful.
This book is full of decisions, and really difficult ones. The ones regarding Jack were quite repetitive to be honest, just like the whole wish to find everything out. It was written in so many places, why Rachel wants to know the truth, that it made it boring. Another thing, which was not my favourite, was her decision, which she should’ve taken after finding out the truth, that confusion was so dragged, that I wanted to shout “Either you want him or not, stop beating about the bush!”.
The themes used in this book where quite interesting, and they made me question myself, what I would’ve done in Jack’s place? Or, was Rachel’s decision right regarding her cancer patient? What I would’ve done in her place? That’s why this book made me confused, because it has really deep meaning and interesting topics, but it was boring at the same time.
The writing style of this novel is easy to read, with lovely and short chapters. This book didn’t offer any twists or turns in my opinion, and kind of just plodded along. Whatever twists or turns supposedly were in this book, were really predictable, even the ending of the book was predictable. So to conclude, I enjoyed some of the parts of this book, but I think it could’ve been better. Doctors, nurses, or people who have someone suffering from cancer would find this book close to their hearts and maybe a good read…
Was given this book by publisher and NetGalley for honest review.