Search
Search results
Hustle Sports Training Drills
Sports and Health & Fitness
App
Hustle offers basketball instruction from expert coaches and trainers. Whether you're looking for...
SatFinder - Adjust your dish in few seconds
Utilities and Productivity
App
SatFinder – Adjust satellite antennas in 4 easy steps – The original since 2010 With SatFinder,...
Handy Photo
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
***** “What does it do? Everything… quickly and easily. It’s really awesome!“ – Life In...
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Shining Girls in Books
Jun 4, 2017
Ambitious & unique story line (1 more)
Handles the web of time paradoxes well
Mash-up of genres is disjointing (2 more)
Romance is distracting at best
Repeated murder scenes gets wearisome
A cool time travel thriller
The Shining Girls follows Harper, a crude serial killer from the 1930’s that can hop through time; and Kirby, the spunky young woman that got away. This book was incredibly ambitious in its premise and I spent a great deal of my time reading the book wondering if it could deliver and I can happily say that I wasn’t disappointed.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 8, 2019
"war is coming to the surface"
Aquaman is absolutely a disciple of the superhero formula we've seen used, reused and recycled over the past couple decades...but its formula done right. There's an inherent lunacy to a hero like Aquaman; his myth is built upon a lost Atlantean culture that's simultaneously advanced technologically and heavily influenced by ancient Greek mythology, and his powers included near-Superman levels of strength and invulnerability existing alongside an ability to communicate with marine life. This makes approaching his story from a gritty, realistic perspective damn near impossible.
Instead Wan and the writers behind Aquaman intelligently focus on world-building and following the tried-and-true "heroic journey"; complete with initial rejection of a prophesied role, slow but steady immersion into said role's culture, recognition of the need for growth and change, and eventual assumption of role. It's been seen before and it'll be seen again. But what propels Aquaman ahead of other films like it is the energy that Wan imbues it with. It's goofy without undermining the sincerity of Arthur's journey. It's fast-paced and simple-minded without sacrificing the weight and universality of this particular hero's myth. It's loud and colorful and *full* of CGI everything without reducing itself to an over-commercialized, artless heap of nothingness.
It's a big-ass blockbuster with personality. Momoa has charisma to spare; he owns the physicality and irreverence of this new imagining of the king of the ocean perfectly. Amber Heard is sexy and badass as Mera; something of a victim of a forced romance but also a compelling and strong protagonist in her own right. Patrick Wilson as Oceanmaster (call me....Oceanmaster) is given enough screen-time to develop that he's more than a punching bag for Aquaman; but actually a character with ambitions and a defined, fleshed-out purpose. The origin segment is tightly done and more than enough to set the stage for what is to come. And probably the strongest aspect of this picture, the costuming and world-building, is off the charts. Similar to the enduring fantasy films that precede this (LOTR, Star Wars, Avatar for a few examples) the undersea kingdoms are a place I want to return to. They aren't just my world dressed up with CGI and the occasional costuming flourish; they're entirely foreign and endlessly inventive. Probably a solid third of the film is simply Aquaman, and the audience, being told about this world and shown it by Mera. While that may not be artistically prestigious strategy for engaging audiences, it entertains and fascinates on a "turn off your brain and look at those pretty colors" sort of way. There's a simple glee in seeing sharks ridden like horses or an octopus pounding a war-time set of drums.
I always offer the disclaimer when writing about nerdy films that I love which is this: I am a nerd. While I wasn't particularly attached to Aquaman growing up; his journey, the nature of this sort of film and the cinematic universe he will be growing into are fundamentally important to me, and I like to embrace that bias rather than keep it in check with reduced ratings or "objective" analysis. Whether it be a giant, confusing and chaotic battle between underwater armies or the horrifying descent into "the trench"; you'll always find me looking up at the screen like a little kid. Or moments like Arthur meeting Mera and confronting is past, or taking upon the role of king while wielding the trident; I just love that sort of stuff. I'm a sucker for these beats and this formula; and all signs point to this continuing. So while I may like it more than most; I'd mostly like to say Aquaman still distinguishes itself as a particularly goofy, sprawling, mythic, and metal experience that deserved to be seen on the big-screen, and to be celebrated as the fantasy film it is. It's a great time, and a nice addition to the DC film franchise.
Instead Wan and the writers behind Aquaman intelligently focus on world-building and following the tried-and-true "heroic journey"; complete with initial rejection of a prophesied role, slow but steady immersion into said role's culture, recognition of the need for growth and change, and eventual assumption of role. It's been seen before and it'll be seen again. But what propels Aquaman ahead of other films like it is the energy that Wan imbues it with. It's goofy without undermining the sincerity of Arthur's journey. It's fast-paced and simple-minded without sacrificing the weight and universality of this particular hero's myth. It's loud and colorful and *full* of CGI everything without reducing itself to an over-commercialized, artless heap of nothingness.
It's a big-ass blockbuster with personality. Momoa has charisma to spare; he owns the physicality and irreverence of this new imagining of the king of the ocean perfectly. Amber Heard is sexy and badass as Mera; something of a victim of a forced romance but also a compelling and strong protagonist in her own right. Patrick Wilson as Oceanmaster (call me....Oceanmaster) is given enough screen-time to develop that he's more than a punching bag for Aquaman; but actually a character with ambitions and a defined, fleshed-out purpose. The origin segment is tightly done and more than enough to set the stage for what is to come. And probably the strongest aspect of this picture, the costuming and world-building, is off the charts. Similar to the enduring fantasy films that precede this (LOTR, Star Wars, Avatar for a few examples) the undersea kingdoms are a place I want to return to. They aren't just my world dressed up with CGI and the occasional costuming flourish; they're entirely foreign and endlessly inventive. Probably a solid third of the film is simply Aquaman, and the audience, being told about this world and shown it by Mera. While that may not be artistically prestigious strategy for engaging audiences, it entertains and fascinates on a "turn off your brain and look at those pretty colors" sort of way. There's a simple glee in seeing sharks ridden like horses or an octopus pounding a war-time set of drums.
I always offer the disclaimer when writing about nerdy films that I love which is this: I am a nerd. While I wasn't particularly attached to Aquaman growing up; his journey, the nature of this sort of film and the cinematic universe he will be growing into are fundamentally important to me, and I like to embrace that bias rather than keep it in check with reduced ratings or "objective" analysis. Whether it be a giant, confusing and chaotic battle between underwater armies or the horrifying descent into "the trench"; you'll always find me looking up at the screen like a little kid. Or moments like Arthur meeting Mera and confronting is past, or taking upon the role of king while wielding the trident; I just love that sort of stuff. I'm a sucker for these beats and this formula; and all signs point to this continuing. So while I may like it more than most; I'd mostly like to say Aquaman still distinguishes itself as a particularly goofy, sprawling, mythic, and metal experience that deserved to be seen on the big-screen, and to be celebrated as the fantasy film it is. It's a great time, and a nice addition to the DC film franchise.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated A Game of Thrones in Books
Oct 19, 2018
Full review can be found on my blog: www.diaryofdifference.com
This book will shake and break your heart. This book will make you realise that life is anything but gentle. But this book will also bring you the greatest adventure you have yet to see.
I have bought my whole book collection back in 2014. I have been procrastinating with this series for four years. And today, while writing this review, I thank the old gods and the new, for convincing me to read the first book.
I am probably one of the last people that have reviewed this book, and I assume you all already know a lot about the Game of Thrones series.
It is a book about one Iron Throne, and all the wars, fights, betrayals are about who will be sitting on that throne, and who will be in charge of all kingdoms.
Now, starting off, I am still not sure why people would send armies and armies of soldiers in order to win the throne, when it seems that no matter who becomes a king, that person gets instantly killed. And no kingdom respects each other, and kings and lords keep fighting off and wasting resources for a lost purpose, so there’s that as well.
We have many houses, Stark, Lannister, Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, Targaryen, Tyrell, Greyjoy, Martell, etc - and they all feature with something unique to their house. Most importantly, they all either want the throne, want revenge or want them both.
But just to clarify - I loved the book!
George R.R. Martin is a genius! He has created this amazing world, and characters that are so alive that make you either hate them or love them, but with all your heart. He has created relationships so tangled and stories so well written, that he puts other authors to shame.
The book is written from a third person perspective, and each chapter features a character. And with each chapter, George moves the time gradually, so we are not stuck in a loop of time pause. I enjoyed this method quite a lot! It kept the story line going very smoothly.
‘’Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.’’
There were so many characters I admired. But my connection with these characters in this book is unlike any other connection I have made. I usually either love or hate a character. But here, I judged actions, and relationships, and things people said and did!
I liked Eddard Stark’s bravery, and his manliness, but I didn’t like the fact that he was too honest for his own good.
‘’Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?
‘’That’s the only time a man an be brave’’.
I loved Arya’s fierceness, but I didn’t like her stubbornness.
‘’For the second time today Arya reflected that life was not fair.’’
I liked Sansa’s politeness, and girlishness. She had all the perfect manners, but she also would betray family for love.
I loved Jon Snow’s story, and how he overcame his past, and learned to live with it.
‘’Let me give you some counsel, bastard.‘’ Lannister said. ‘’Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armor yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.’’
I loved many other characters for things they did, and hated many others, but I cherished the difference in each and every character, and that was the beauty in it - that even though an author can create so many characters, he can make them so different from each other.
In this book, you will encounter everything: mostly mean people, ready to kill everyone and anyone standing in the way of their plans. You will read about a story of a family that falls apart, a kingdom that vanishes, a fight between kings, how a little girl will learn life in one day, how a mother will watch her children disappear, one by one.
This book will shake and break your heart. This book will make you realise that life is anything but gentle. But this book will also bring you the greatest adventure you have yet to see.
I have bought my whole book collection back in 2014. I have been procrastinating with this series for four years. And today, while writing this review, I thank the old gods and the new, for convincing me to read the first book.
I am probably one of the last people that have reviewed this book, and I assume you all already know a lot about the Game of Thrones series.
It is a book about one Iron Throne, and all the wars, fights, betrayals are about who will be sitting on that throne, and who will be in charge of all kingdoms.
Now, starting off, I am still not sure why people would send armies and armies of soldiers in order to win the throne, when it seems that no matter who becomes a king, that person gets instantly killed. And no kingdom respects each other, and kings and lords keep fighting off and wasting resources for a lost purpose, so there’s that as well.
We have many houses, Stark, Lannister, Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, Targaryen, Tyrell, Greyjoy, Martell, etc - and they all feature with something unique to their house. Most importantly, they all either want the throne, want revenge or want them both.
But just to clarify - I loved the book!
George R.R. Martin is a genius! He has created this amazing world, and characters that are so alive that make you either hate them or love them, but with all your heart. He has created relationships so tangled and stories so well written, that he puts other authors to shame.
The book is written from a third person perspective, and each chapter features a character. And with each chapter, George moves the time gradually, so we are not stuck in a loop of time pause. I enjoyed this method quite a lot! It kept the story line going very smoothly.
‘’Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.’’
There were so many characters I admired. But my connection with these characters in this book is unlike any other connection I have made. I usually either love or hate a character. But here, I judged actions, and relationships, and things people said and did!
I liked Eddard Stark’s bravery, and his manliness, but I didn’t like the fact that he was too honest for his own good.
‘’Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?
‘’That’s the only time a man an be brave’’.
I loved Arya’s fierceness, but I didn’t like her stubbornness.
‘’For the second time today Arya reflected that life was not fair.’’
I liked Sansa’s politeness, and girlishness. She had all the perfect manners, but she also would betray family for love.
I loved Jon Snow’s story, and how he overcame his past, and learned to live with it.
‘’Let me give you some counsel, bastard.‘’ Lannister said. ‘’Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armor yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.’’
I loved many other characters for things they did, and hated many others, but I cherished the difference in each and every character, and that was the beauty in it - that even though an author can create so many characters, he can make them so different from each other.
In this book, you will encounter everything: mostly mean people, ready to kill everyone and anyone standing in the way of their plans. You will read about a story of a family that falls apart, a kingdom that vanishes, a fight between kings, how a little girl will learn life in one day, how a mother will watch her children disappear, one by one.
Cassie Osbourne (6 KP) rated The Hazel Wood in Books
Nov 9, 2018
Alice and her mother, Ella, have been on the road for as long as she can remember, constantly followed by some kind of freak bad luck. When word reaches them that Ella’s mother, famous fairytale author Althea Proserpine, has died, they think they’re safe...until Ella gets kidnapped by the Hinterlands. To save her, Alice must venture into the Hazel Wood.
I LOVE fairy tales, the darker, the better as far as I’m concerned. So when I’m told about a book that is based around dark, original fairytales, naturally I wanted to read it as soon as I could get my hands on it. However, it wasn’t quite what I expected.
Although this is a book about fairy tales and their characters being real, we are only told two stories: ‘Alice Three Times’ and ‘The Door That Wasn’t There’. This means that when we meet the Nightwalkers, Twice-Killed-Katherine, the Briar King and Hansa the Traveller, we don’t know what to make of them because we don’t know their stories. Now, I am all for discovering more about characters and their motivations as the story unfolds, but we never get that with these characters - it’s almost just assumed that we know who they are. I even checked online to see if I was reading the second book in the series by mistake! There is a book being written called ‘Tales From The Hinterland’ which is the collection of stories that these characters are from, but it is set to be published in 2020 when really it should have come first. Having said all of that, I did really like the ‘real world’ characters, and I thought that Janet and Spinner were super cool.
The atmosphere was really good throughout, even in the middle section when I found it hard to read because I couldn’t connect were really atmospheric. I loved the strange surrealness and dreamlike writing that was very fairy tale-ish, and it was brilliant. I also really enjoyed the writing style. I don’t think that I’ve properly ever read a book with so many current references and I quite like it. It makes the book feel very contemporary (after all it was only published in January) and in our world, while still having the other world, the Hinterland, mixed in which gives it a slight feeling of invasion and overlap. It also really suits Alice’s character and voice since she is narrating the story and was brought up very much in our world.
The plot was good on the whole. My main issue, once again, comes down to the fact that the stories weren’t told - or rather that the wrong one was. ‘Alice Three Times’ was great because it became relevant but ‘The Door That Wasn’t There’ seemed not to have any purpose. Surely if there was one story that Finch would have told Alice, it would have been ‘Twice-Killed-Katherine’ as she is following them for most of the first half of the book (and then just disappears for no real reason).
While the beginning and end of the book are really great and really gripping, I found most of the middle section really difficult to read because, guess what, we didn’t know the stories! When I started reading this book, I thought that I would finish it in the same week I started it...that was two weeks ago. The middle of the book is when Alice actually enters the Hinterland, but since we don’t know anything about the characters or the world, it feels like we’re constantly playing catch up. Whenever I decided what I was going to sit down, grit my teeth and get through it, it felt like it was a chore and I could only manage one or two chapters at a time. It gets very gripping again from chapter twenty-eight when Alice starts to get sucked into the story, but that’s because we’ve already been told ‘Alice Three Times”.
Although I did like ‘The Hazel Wood’, a middle did take a lot of the enjoyment out of reading it. Maybe when ‘Tales From The Hinterland’ comes out, I’ll read that then give this book another shot when I am more informed.
Characters: 6/10
Atmosphere: 8/10
Writing Style: 8/10
Plot: 7/10
Intrigue: 6/10
Logic: 7/10
Enjoyment: 7/10
I LOVE fairy tales, the darker, the better as far as I’m concerned. So when I’m told about a book that is based around dark, original fairytales, naturally I wanted to read it as soon as I could get my hands on it. However, it wasn’t quite what I expected.
Although this is a book about fairy tales and their characters being real, we are only told two stories: ‘Alice Three Times’ and ‘The Door That Wasn’t There’. This means that when we meet the Nightwalkers, Twice-Killed-Katherine, the Briar King and Hansa the Traveller, we don’t know what to make of them because we don’t know their stories. Now, I am all for discovering more about characters and their motivations as the story unfolds, but we never get that with these characters - it’s almost just assumed that we know who they are. I even checked online to see if I was reading the second book in the series by mistake! There is a book being written called ‘Tales From The Hinterland’ which is the collection of stories that these characters are from, but it is set to be published in 2020 when really it should have come first. Having said all of that, I did really like the ‘real world’ characters, and I thought that Janet and Spinner were super cool.
The atmosphere was really good throughout, even in the middle section when I found it hard to read because I couldn’t connect were really atmospheric. I loved the strange surrealness and dreamlike writing that was very fairy tale-ish, and it was brilliant. I also really enjoyed the writing style. I don’t think that I’ve properly ever read a book with so many current references and I quite like it. It makes the book feel very contemporary (after all it was only published in January) and in our world, while still having the other world, the Hinterland, mixed in which gives it a slight feeling of invasion and overlap. It also really suits Alice’s character and voice since she is narrating the story and was brought up very much in our world.
The plot was good on the whole. My main issue, once again, comes down to the fact that the stories weren’t told - or rather that the wrong one was. ‘Alice Three Times’ was great because it became relevant but ‘The Door That Wasn’t There’ seemed not to have any purpose. Surely if there was one story that Finch would have told Alice, it would have been ‘Twice-Killed-Katherine’ as she is following them for most of the first half of the book (and then just disappears for no real reason).
While the beginning and end of the book are really great and really gripping, I found most of the middle section really difficult to read because, guess what, we didn’t know the stories! When I started reading this book, I thought that I would finish it in the same week I started it...that was two weeks ago. The middle of the book is when Alice actually enters the Hinterland, but since we don’t know anything about the characters or the world, it feels like we’re constantly playing catch up. Whenever I decided what I was going to sit down, grit my teeth and get through it, it felt like it was a chore and I could only manage one or two chapters at a time. It gets very gripping again from chapter twenty-eight when Alice starts to get sucked into the story, but that’s because we’ve already been told ‘Alice Three Times”.
Although I did like ‘The Hazel Wood’, a middle did take a lot of the enjoyment out of reading it. Maybe when ‘Tales From The Hinterland’ comes out, I’ll read that then give this book another shot when I am more informed.
Characters: 6/10
Atmosphere: 8/10
Writing Style: 8/10
Plot: 7/10
Intrigue: 6/10
Logic: 7/10
Enjoyment: 7/10
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Who Runs the World? in Books
Dec 17, 2018
3.5 stars
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What would the world be like if there were no men, only women? Would it be an idyllic, peaceful planet, where compassion and courtesy are more important than money and owning commodities? A world without war, without crime, without weapons? Global agreements with everyone working together and not for personal gain? Endangered animals suddenly thriving in a landscape no longer inhabited by poachers? Perfect, perhaps? <i>Welcome to the Matriarchy.</i>
<i>Who Runs the World?</i> by Virigina Bergin explores the concept of growing up in a world with no men. Sixty years previously, a virus wiped out anyone with a Y chromosome (i.e. men), leaving women to pull together to survive in a dystopian world. River, aged fourteen, has never met a boy, and never expects to – they are as rare as unicorns. Conditioned to believe that men used to be monsters whose only aims were to rape, harm and kill, River believes the world is a faultless society. But, then she meets Mason.
Mason is a similar age to River, but has a distinct difference – he’s a boy. After escaping from a sanctuary – something River never knew existed – Mason has been on the run, seriously ill, but, amazingly, not dying. Despite the initial antagonism between the two characters – after all, they have both been conditioned to believe the opposite sexes are dangerous predators - River and Mason quickly discover that the older women in power have been hiding secrets from the rest of the world.
For six decades, men have lived in sterile sanctuaries, isolated from the deadly virus and the rest of the world. Their purpose is to produce sperm to be used in IVF in order to keep the human population going – obvious when you think about it. Yet, there is clearly an ulterior motive amongst the women in charge, for why else would they keep the male existence secret and teach young girls that men were monsters?
As River and Mason try to come to terms with the hidden truth, events begin to unravel the harmony of the Matriarchy. Perhaps an all female world would not be so perfect after all.
Initially, the tranquil civilisation Bergin creates feels false, a mockery of today’s politics. It is almost like feminism gone too far, claiming that men are the reason for the suffering in today’s world. True, women are still oppressed by their male counterparts, but the generalization that this is a result of ALL men, is a stretch too far. Once the truth about the situation begins to break through, it becomes more acceptable, more realistic even, given the corrupt society we are used to.
But Bergin has a point, how would the world survive if there were no men? For all we know, a deadly virus could rid the world of XYs, leaving women to piece everything back together. What the author is trying to point out is that women CAN be as powerful as men. Women deserve to be part of politics, of decision making, to have equal rights. Despite the initial suggested perfection, Bergin is showing that women are as capable as men, not better or worse.
Targeted at young adults, <i>Who Runs the World?</i> is written in a way that current readers can relate to, but not in ways one may expect. References made by or about the older generation are much more significant than the life and experiences of River, for it is these women that were alive at the beginning of the 21st century. These women were us.
An innovative novel from an up-and-coming British author, <i>Who Runs the World? </i>will make you think about the future as well as open your eyes to the discrimination of the present. It is a very interesting concept with the potential to be followed up with further novels, or left to the reader’s imagination.
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What would the world be like if there were no men, only women? Would it be an idyllic, peaceful planet, where compassion and courtesy are more important than money and owning commodities? A world without war, without crime, without weapons? Global agreements with everyone working together and not for personal gain? Endangered animals suddenly thriving in a landscape no longer inhabited by poachers? Perfect, perhaps? <i>Welcome to the Matriarchy.</i>
<i>Who Runs the World?</i> by Virigina Bergin explores the concept of growing up in a world with no men. Sixty years previously, a virus wiped out anyone with a Y chromosome (i.e. men), leaving women to pull together to survive in a dystopian world. River, aged fourteen, has never met a boy, and never expects to – they are as rare as unicorns. Conditioned to believe that men used to be monsters whose only aims were to rape, harm and kill, River believes the world is a faultless society. But, then she meets Mason.
Mason is a similar age to River, but has a distinct difference – he’s a boy. After escaping from a sanctuary – something River never knew existed – Mason has been on the run, seriously ill, but, amazingly, not dying. Despite the initial antagonism between the two characters – after all, they have both been conditioned to believe the opposite sexes are dangerous predators - River and Mason quickly discover that the older women in power have been hiding secrets from the rest of the world.
For six decades, men have lived in sterile sanctuaries, isolated from the deadly virus and the rest of the world. Their purpose is to produce sperm to be used in IVF in order to keep the human population going – obvious when you think about it. Yet, there is clearly an ulterior motive amongst the women in charge, for why else would they keep the male existence secret and teach young girls that men were monsters?
As River and Mason try to come to terms with the hidden truth, events begin to unravel the harmony of the Matriarchy. Perhaps an all female world would not be so perfect after all.
Initially, the tranquil civilisation Bergin creates feels false, a mockery of today’s politics. It is almost like feminism gone too far, claiming that men are the reason for the suffering in today’s world. True, women are still oppressed by their male counterparts, but the generalization that this is a result of ALL men, is a stretch too far. Once the truth about the situation begins to break through, it becomes more acceptable, more realistic even, given the corrupt society we are used to.
But Bergin has a point, how would the world survive if there were no men? For all we know, a deadly virus could rid the world of XYs, leaving women to piece everything back together. What the author is trying to point out is that women CAN be as powerful as men. Women deserve to be part of politics, of decision making, to have equal rights. Despite the initial suggested perfection, Bergin is showing that women are as capable as men, not better or worse.
Targeted at young adults, <i>Who Runs the World?</i> is written in a way that current readers can relate to, but not in ways one may expect. References made by or about the older generation are much more significant than the life and experiences of River, for it is these women that were alive at the beginning of the 21st century. These women were us.
An innovative novel from an up-and-coming British author, <i>Who Runs the World? </i>will make you think about the future as well as open your eyes to the discrimination of the present. It is a very interesting concept with the potential to be followed up with further novels, or left to the reader’s imagination.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Slither (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Mixing elements of The Blob, The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Night of the Creeps and countless other horror films, the new Horror/Comedy Slither has oozed its way into theaters with a mix that will likely delight hardcore horror fans.
The film is set in a small southern town and features the usual mix of horror film stereotypes. There is the Chief of Police named Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillon) who watched over the sleepy town while secretly holding a torch for the lovely Starla Grant (Elizabeth Banks). The only issue is Starla’s older husband Grant (Michael Rooker), who is not only a very prosperous man, but took Starla in when she was younger and provided for her.
Of course there are also the stock characters of the loud and obnoxious Mayor of the town (Gregg Henry), who is more trouble than he is good and spouts a string of profanity and insensitive remarks that would make a Drill Instructor blush. Add to the mix the various assortments of yokels, deputies and towns folk, and you have a setting ripe for invasion.
The invasion arrives in the form of a meteor that breaks apart in the atmosphere save for a small segment that lands harmlessly in the woods. Unfortunately, an organism has hitched a ride on the meteor and in short order a parasitic organism has infected Grant causing him to exhibit odd behavior and have a ravenous desire for large amounts of meat in all forms.
Despite the changes, Grant still has his eye firmly on his wife and as the changes become more and more radical, he becomes even more fixated upon his wife.
Eventually Grant’s odd behavior and ongoing transformation has him on the run from the authorities who organize a manhunt to bring him in and end the carnage in his path.
Naturally things do not go as planned as before long there are hordes of slug like creatures unleashed upon the town whose entire purpose is to infect the town making zombies out of all who are infected.
As if all of this was not bad enough, Bill must figure out how to protect those uninfected people as well as search for a way to end the devastation at all cost.
Slither is a film that strives to blend horror and comedy but seems better suited to be a comedic send up of the horror genre. Unlike the “Scary Movie” series, it does not come in as a parody but rather presents itself as a horror film, yet one that seems devoid of any real suspense or frights. There is plenty of gore, violence, and other mayhem in the film, but at my advanced screenings the vast majority of the film garnered laughs from the audience rather than shrieks.
Since there were several segments of the film that were obviously intended to create laughs such as the zombie family trying to coax their uninfected daughter out of hiding by proclaiming she is missing out on family fun day, and a very gory, yet humorous outcome for a yokel who decides to stand down a very infected Grant armed only with a pistol.
James Gunn who did such a good job with the “Dawn of the Dead” lets it all out as writer and Director for Slither, but seems unsure if he is trying to make a comedy or a horror film with comedic elements. To me the film works best as a comedy as the over simplified resolution combined with the strained performances and simple plot as well as the genuine lack of any suspense or scares seriously undermined this film for me as a horror film.
That being said, if you look at the film as a gross out comedy set amidst a generic horror backdrop where the plot, acting, and other pitfalls were designed elements, then the film works.
If you are looking for a bad horror movie with some funny moments, than Slither may indeed be your thing, as it is either a very bad horror film, or one of the best satirical tributes of the genre to date. I choose to pick the latter.
The film is set in a small southern town and features the usual mix of horror film stereotypes. There is the Chief of Police named Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillon) who watched over the sleepy town while secretly holding a torch for the lovely Starla Grant (Elizabeth Banks). The only issue is Starla’s older husband Grant (Michael Rooker), who is not only a very prosperous man, but took Starla in when she was younger and provided for her.
Of course there are also the stock characters of the loud and obnoxious Mayor of the town (Gregg Henry), who is more trouble than he is good and spouts a string of profanity and insensitive remarks that would make a Drill Instructor blush. Add to the mix the various assortments of yokels, deputies and towns folk, and you have a setting ripe for invasion.
The invasion arrives in the form of a meteor that breaks apart in the atmosphere save for a small segment that lands harmlessly in the woods. Unfortunately, an organism has hitched a ride on the meteor and in short order a parasitic organism has infected Grant causing him to exhibit odd behavior and have a ravenous desire for large amounts of meat in all forms.
Despite the changes, Grant still has his eye firmly on his wife and as the changes become more and more radical, he becomes even more fixated upon his wife.
Eventually Grant’s odd behavior and ongoing transformation has him on the run from the authorities who organize a manhunt to bring him in and end the carnage in his path.
Naturally things do not go as planned as before long there are hordes of slug like creatures unleashed upon the town whose entire purpose is to infect the town making zombies out of all who are infected.
As if all of this was not bad enough, Bill must figure out how to protect those uninfected people as well as search for a way to end the devastation at all cost.
Slither is a film that strives to blend horror and comedy but seems better suited to be a comedic send up of the horror genre. Unlike the “Scary Movie” series, it does not come in as a parody but rather presents itself as a horror film, yet one that seems devoid of any real suspense or frights. There is plenty of gore, violence, and other mayhem in the film, but at my advanced screenings the vast majority of the film garnered laughs from the audience rather than shrieks.
Since there were several segments of the film that were obviously intended to create laughs such as the zombie family trying to coax their uninfected daughter out of hiding by proclaiming she is missing out on family fun day, and a very gory, yet humorous outcome for a yokel who decides to stand down a very infected Grant armed only with a pistol.
James Gunn who did such a good job with the “Dawn of the Dead” lets it all out as writer and Director for Slither, but seems unsure if he is trying to make a comedy or a horror film with comedic elements. To me the film works best as a comedy as the over simplified resolution combined with the strained performances and simple plot as well as the genuine lack of any suspense or scares seriously undermined this film for me as a horror film.
That being said, if you look at the film as a gross out comedy set amidst a generic horror backdrop where the plot, acting, and other pitfalls were designed elements, then the film works.
If you are looking for a bad horror movie with some funny moments, than Slither may indeed be your thing, as it is either a very bad horror film, or one of the best satirical tributes of the genre to date. I choose to pick the latter.