Search
Uganda be Kidding Me
2.0
Rate It
Book
I awoke at 4:45 am in Johannesburg, South Africa, in my bra and underwear and looked over at my...
White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America
Book
In her groundbreaking bestselling history of the class system in America, Nancy Isenberg upends...
History politics social issues
Neverthink: best videos daily
Entertainment
App
"NEVERTHINK MIGHT JUST BE THE MOST ‘LEAN BACK’ ONLINE VIDEO EXPERIENCE YET" - Techcrunch.com ...
TacoDave (3523 KP) rated Funhouse (2019) in Movies
Feb 15, 2022 (Updated Feb 15, 2022)
Editing (2 more)
Writing
Acting (mostly)
This movie is better than it has any right to be...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I like to watch bad horror movies. I'm not sure why. I'm not a big fan of many modern horror movies (often referred to as "torture porn") like Hostel and Saw, but rather I like small, independent horror movies that focus on a single central conceit.
I go into these movies with rock-bottom expectations, hoping against hope that they will be slightly better than expected. "Funhouse" was suprisingly entertaining, when compared to similar genre films.
The premise is simple: eight wannabe famous people (think: influencers, normal people who married celebrities, low-level MMA fighters, etc.) sign up for a reality TV show in the vein of Big Brother where they will be locked in a house together and voted out by the public.
There's one catch, of course: the guy running the show - who uses a digital avatar of a panda to speak to the "contestants" - is a nutjob and the loser of the public vote gets killed in a gruesome way.
Is it real? Is it fake entertainment for the online era? Will reacters on Youtube believe it is real? How does society treat the death of someone who really, really wants to be famous, but is only barely-known?
These questions are good ones and the movie doesn't shy away from them. In fact, after each "kill" there is a cut to people in the real world reacting to it that gives the movie a lot more nuance than a typical horror film.
The kills are very graphic and gruesome and I actually looked away for a couple of them because (as I said before) I'm not a fan of torture porn. And there is some female nudity in the movie, specifically when one character decides to strip to earn viewer votes to stay alive.
Still, all in all I was entertained. And that's all I wanted for those 90 minutes - to shut off my logical brain and just watch something different. This movie fit the bill.
I go into these movies with rock-bottom expectations, hoping against hope that they will be slightly better than expected. "Funhouse" was suprisingly entertaining, when compared to similar genre films.
The premise is simple: eight wannabe famous people (think: influencers, normal people who married celebrities, low-level MMA fighters, etc.) sign up for a reality TV show in the vein of Big Brother where they will be locked in a house together and voted out by the public.
There's one catch, of course: the guy running the show - who uses a digital avatar of a panda to speak to the "contestants" - is a nutjob and the loser of the public vote gets killed in a gruesome way.
Is it real? Is it fake entertainment for the online era? Will reacters on Youtube believe it is real? How does society treat the death of someone who really, really wants to be famous, but is only barely-known?
These questions are good ones and the movie doesn't shy away from them. In fact, after each "kill" there is a cut to people in the real world reacting to it that gives the movie a lot more nuance than a typical horror film.
The kills are very graphic and gruesome and I actually looked away for a couple of them because (as I said before) I'm not a fan of torture porn. And there is some female nudity in the movie, specifically when one character decides to strip to earn viewer votes to stay alive.
Still, all in all I was entertained. And that's all I wanted for those 90 minutes - to shut off my logical brain and just watch something different. This movie fit the bill.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The phenomenon of “true crime” as entertainment is disturbing. What we are saying when we subscribe to watch these compellingly morbid shows is that, of course, we don’t “enjoy” or condone the crimes themselves. But, we do increasingly expect that without the grotesque detail of primary crime scene evidence, documented visually, we can switch over to another show that will give us our macabre kick. So, it is a dangerous precedent to say that without that factor we won’t engage.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Spy spoof caper that’s only passably amusing.
It’s a HILARIOUS concept. It’s Bond but not as we know it: a suave, sophisticated, well-dressed hero but someone who’s a complete klutz when it comes to the spy business. Rowan Atkinson is perfect in the role: because when he plays his face ”straight” he IS strangely good-looking and certainly pulls off the air of confidence, intelligence and sophistication well.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
A Life In High Definition (2 KP) rated Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015) in Movies
Dec 31, 2018
Stylish, slick spy caper
Contains spoilers, click to show
I watched this film when it was released in 2015 & thoroughly enjoyed it on tv a night or two ago. Perhaps it was seeing that age wasn’t a barrier for Colin Firth to be a sprightly James Bond style spy or the enjoyable action scenes but o found it every bit as entertaining as the first watch through.
We start with a seemingly perfectly executed interrogation which goes wrong when a young recruit gets blown up to save the rest of his team. A medal & instructions on how to call for help are left with young son, Eggsy, & his unhappy mother.
Fast forward some years and Eggsy is grown, living on a generalised Tough estate with his mum, her all round abusive husband and his new baby sister. A dramatic contrast to the smooth, sophisticated upper class gentlemen of the Kingsmen who are preparing to choose a new recruit after losing a member to a choppy new enemy.
Eggsy gets the opportunity to use the medal & is given the opportunity to take a new path following in his fathers footsteps. Here we discover that there is more to this character than his school reports, rap sheet & current unemployed status might make you think. Despite his upbringing, Eggsy maintains a strong moral code & will not betray a confidence leading to him becoming a Kingsman trainee.
The obvious juxtaposition of ‘posh vs common’ becomes even more intense as Eggsy must proved his worth against young people who have been training for this role, possibly for their whole lives and of course are very rich as per the original heritage of the Kingsmen. It turns out the girls do not care about money & between that and some sage words from people about chips & shoulders Eggsy makes it through to the final two but will he triumph at the last hurdle?
Meanwhile the enemy plan to reduce the world population by using people’s desire for free stuff and a dramatic twist follows which doesn’t follow the rules of a classic spy film.
Will the world be saved? Will Eggsy leap forward or step back? Will there be any more twists? You’ll have to watch & find out.
We start with a seemingly perfectly executed interrogation which goes wrong when a young recruit gets blown up to save the rest of his team. A medal & instructions on how to call for help are left with young son, Eggsy, & his unhappy mother.
Fast forward some years and Eggsy is grown, living on a generalised Tough estate with his mum, her all round abusive husband and his new baby sister. A dramatic contrast to the smooth, sophisticated upper class gentlemen of the Kingsmen who are preparing to choose a new recruit after losing a member to a choppy new enemy.
Eggsy gets the opportunity to use the medal & is given the opportunity to take a new path following in his fathers footsteps. Here we discover that there is more to this character than his school reports, rap sheet & current unemployed status might make you think. Despite his upbringing, Eggsy maintains a strong moral code & will not betray a confidence leading to him becoming a Kingsman trainee.
The obvious juxtaposition of ‘posh vs common’ becomes even more intense as Eggsy must proved his worth against young people who have been training for this role, possibly for their whole lives and of course are very rich as per the original heritage of the Kingsmen. It turns out the girls do not care about money & between that and some sage words from people about chips & shoulders Eggsy makes it through to the final two but will he triumph at the last hurdle?
Meanwhile the enemy plan to reduce the world population by using people’s desire for free stuff and a dramatic twist follows which doesn’t follow the rules of a classic spy film.
Will the world be saved? Will Eggsy leap forward or step back? Will there be any more twists? You’ll have to watch & find out.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Eighth Grade (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Eighth Grade was quite difficult for me to watch. I absolutely hate watching things that are awkward, and if one word sums up this film it's "awkward". I'm throwing it in the pool with talk shows and reality TV in all their cringy glory. Between those awkward moments we do thankfully see some nicer moments.
Kayla is trying to navigate the move from eighth grade to high school, the perils of friends and enemies, and how to get noticed by the right people. Like many of us have done she tries stepping out of her comfort zone with varying degrees of success. But every one of those steps helps her learn something about herself and life, things that she hopes future Kayla will remember when life seems tough.
I'm just going to skip over the things I didn't like about the movie because honestly, it's all mainly issues to do with the awkwardness I've already mentioned.
Kayla's dad is probably my favourite character in this, he is involved in some of the scenes I didn't like but overall he brings a lot of heart to the film. When he makes his speech at Kayla towards the end it's a genuinely moving moment and it brought a tear to my eye. One of the only things that I came away wondering was where was mum, she's mentioned but I don't think anything is specifically mentioned apart from "she left". Part of me thinks it's frustrating, but there was no real way to bring it up out of context.
There's nothing particularly wrong with the film, the acting was fine and although the script was frustrating it was accurate to what was trying to be achieved. This is definitely not for me though. Partly for the awkward reason and partly because I don't entirely enjoy watching films that involve things I could, or have, done myself.
What you should do
It's not one that' I'd recommend for the obvious reason above. It does seem to be liked by lots of people though so it's probably one that's worth checking out when it goes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I not sure there's actually anything from this I'd like to take home with me... I don't need any more angsty teen in my life.
Kayla is trying to navigate the move from eighth grade to high school, the perils of friends and enemies, and how to get noticed by the right people. Like many of us have done she tries stepping out of her comfort zone with varying degrees of success. But every one of those steps helps her learn something about herself and life, things that she hopes future Kayla will remember when life seems tough.
I'm just going to skip over the things I didn't like about the movie because honestly, it's all mainly issues to do with the awkwardness I've already mentioned.
Kayla's dad is probably my favourite character in this, he is involved in some of the scenes I didn't like but overall he brings a lot of heart to the film. When he makes his speech at Kayla towards the end it's a genuinely moving moment and it brought a tear to my eye. One of the only things that I came away wondering was where was mum, she's mentioned but I don't think anything is specifically mentioned apart from "she left". Part of me thinks it's frustrating, but there was no real way to bring it up out of context.
There's nothing particularly wrong with the film, the acting was fine and although the script was frustrating it was accurate to what was trying to be achieved. This is definitely not for me though. Partly for the awkward reason and partly because I don't entirely enjoy watching films that involve things I could, or have, done myself.
What you should do
It's not one that' I'd recommend for the obvious reason above. It does seem to be liked by lots of people though so it's probably one that's worth checking out when it goes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I not sure there's actually anything from this I'd like to take home with me... I don't need any more angsty teen in my life.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Figment Wars: Through the Portals in Books
Jan 9, 2020
The Figment Wars: Through The Portals by David R. Lord is a book that I hope to see a sequel to in the coming years. In fact, the ending of the book suggests at least a sequel if not an entire series. I just wonder how such stories can continue without becoming too far fetched or simplified by the childrens stabilizes in this book, but without giving too much away I have to stop there.
Thomas and his little brother Isaac are visiting their cousin Emily at her house and they are not exactly having a good time. At Emilys house, the boys dont even have a TV to watch and they are extremely bored. Then one afternoon when Thomas goes to the woods behind the house to get Emily for lunch something amazing happens. The trees themselves bend and move, forming a portal that all three children fall into. The portal transports the children into the Realm of Imagination, a place where all the things humans imagine come to life.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/2019/07/review-figment-wars-through-portals-by.html
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/figment-wars-through-portals
Almost as soon as the children arrive they are attacked by Monsters but luckily they are saved by Heroes and are taken to the Library in the Impossible City. It is here that they meet Belactacus who believes that the children are Real and not just confused imaginary friends. Sadly the Council who is in charge of the portals that allow beings in the Realm of Imagination to go to the Realm of Reality is corrupted and the children are denied a portal back home. Shortly after this decision Monsters attack the Impossible City and even overwhelm the Heroes. Now the children must find a way to stop the corrupted council member from bringing all the Monsters from human imagination to life in the Realm of Reality, home of the humans.
What I liked best might not seem like much but for a story such as this one, it makes a big difference. I liked how not only was the idea of the Realm of Imagination a great concept but the creation of the Realm was well explained. Also, some of the main people in the Realm were explained to be the result of collective consciousness in humans such as the standard idea of a mother figure which was a very nice touch. What I didnt like was the budding relationship between Thomas and Emilys old imaginary friend. I actually thought it was a little creepy. At times I found myself hoping that she would be able to become real and then I thought that it would be way too much like Thomas having a relationship with his cousin.
This book falls solidly into the YA or young adult group of readers. I know this is a broad group ranging from middle school and older, but this book is actually really good and I saw nothing that would make in inappropriate for young readers. The only thing to be careful about is if an advanced reader in elementary school wanted to read this book. I dont know how well they would take to the idea that monsters such as the Boogeyman are real and just living in a different dimension so to speak. With all that being said I rate this book a 3 out of 4. Everything is extremely well thought out in this book. The idea of the Library and the collective consciousness of humans was amazing. The only reason why this book did not get a perfect rating is that I still felt like it was missing something that gave it that wonderful ability to really stand out, but few books have that.
Thomas and his little brother Isaac are visiting their cousin Emily at her house and they are not exactly having a good time. At Emilys house, the boys dont even have a TV to watch and they are extremely bored. Then one afternoon when Thomas goes to the woods behind the house to get Emily for lunch something amazing happens. The trees themselves bend and move, forming a portal that all three children fall into. The portal transports the children into the Realm of Imagination, a place where all the things humans imagine come to life.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/2019/07/review-figment-wars-through-portals-by.html
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/figment-wars-through-portals
Almost as soon as the children arrive they are attacked by Monsters but luckily they are saved by Heroes and are taken to the Library in the Impossible City. It is here that they meet Belactacus who believes that the children are Real and not just confused imaginary friends. Sadly the Council who is in charge of the portals that allow beings in the Realm of Imagination to go to the Realm of Reality is corrupted and the children are denied a portal back home. Shortly after this decision Monsters attack the Impossible City and even overwhelm the Heroes. Now the children must find a way to stop the corrupted council member from bringing all the Monsters from human imagination to life in the Realm of Reality, home of the humans.
What I liked best might not seem like much but for a story such as this one, it makes a big difference. I liked how not only was the idea of the Realm of Imagination a great concept but the creation of the Realm was well explained. Also, some of the main people in the Realm were explained to be the result of collective consciousness in humans such as the standard idea of a mother figure which was a very nice touch. What I didnt like was the budding relationship between Thomas and Emilys old imaginary friend. I actually thought it was a little creepy. At times I found myself hoping that she would be able to become real and then I thought that it would be way too much like Thomas having a relationship with his cousin.
This book falls solidly into the YA or young adult group of readers. I know this is a broad group ranging from middle school and older, but this book is actually really good and I saw nothing that would make in inappropriate for young readers. The only thing to be careful about is if an advanced reader in elementary school wanted to read this book. I dont know how well they would take to the idea that monsters such as the Boogeyman are real and just living in a different dimension so to speak. With all that being said I rate this book a 3 out of 4. Everything is extremely well thought out in this book. The idea of the Library and the collective consciousness of humans was amazing. The only reason why this book did not get a perfect rating is that I still felt like it was missing something that gave it that wonderful ability to really stand out, but few books have that.
Rachel (48 KP) rated The 13th Black Candle in Books
May 27, 2017
Great Characters, Great Story. Great book!
For the first fifteen or so pages I kept thinking "I'm not going to like this". The character of Simon Stacey didn't seem particularly sympathetic nor believable in his reaction to a huge, devastating event in his life.
I am so glad that I persevered with this book. There are a lot of side characters but they are all very fleshed out, apart from one or two that couldn't be until the end of the novel.
Although Simon Stacey is the central character, who I did become to really like and 'get', there are some brilliant characters in the parallel story - the police working the case.
You get to see them all grow and change, there are no stereotypical "This is who they are, this is how they will act regardless of what happens" which seems to be the case a lot of the time when it comes to police characters in novels/TV etc.
This really gives credence and a sense of reality to the story. Some elements are very out of the ordinary and you get to see how an actual person would deal with them!
The storyline itself is intriguing. Parts of it are kept shadowy, which had to be done, and other parts are right in your face from the beginning. What seems like a tiny detail actually turns out to be hugely important and vice versa.
As I said - some aspects are esoteric and unusual but Mr Goodwin manages to keep it utterly believable. I think that is because the mundane elements of life are also included.
The ending was skillfully done. What could have turned into a farce was kept under control and the tension was built in exactly the right way.
The only criticism I have is that I couldn't entirely remember who one or two of the characters actually were once they were revealed. This would definitely be partly my fault though. For various reasons I didn't get to read for three days so memory of the first half of the book wasn't what it should have been.
The only thing I would suggest to the author is that a few more reminders of who some of the lesser characters were would have helped.
There are also a few hints that, perhaps, some people aren't what they seem. Could that be paving the way for a sequel? If it is then that is something I would very eagerly read.
I would recommend this book to most people as it has so many elements to it. It's rather hard to pin down just one genre!
I am so glad that I persevered with this book. There are a lot of side characters but they are all very fleshed out, apart from one or two that couldn't be until the end of the novel.
Although Simon Stacey is the central character, who I did become to really like and 'get', there are some brilliant characters in the parallel story - the police working the case.
You get to see them all grow and change, there are no stereotypical "This is who they are, this is how they will act regardless of what happens" which seems to be the case a lot of the time when it comes to police characters in novels/TV etc.
This really gives credence and a sense of reality to the story. Some elements are very out of the ordinary and you get to see how an actual person would deal with them!
The storyline itself is intriguing. Parts of it are kept shadowy, which had to be done, and other parts are right in your face from the beginning. What seems like a tiny detail actually turns out to be hugely important and vice versa.
As I said - some aspects are esoteric and unusual but Mr Goodwin manages to keep it utterly believable. I think that is because the mundane elements of life are also included.
The ending was skillfully done. What could have turned into a farce was kept under control and the tension was built in exactly the right way.
The only criticism I have is that I couldn't entirely remember who one or two of the characters actually were once they were revealed. This would definitely be partly my fault though. For various reasons I didn't get to read for three days so memory of the first half of the book wasn't what it should have been.
The only thing I would suggest to the author is that a few more reminders of who some of the lesser characters were would have helped.
There are also a few hints that, perhaps, some people aren't what they seem. Could that be paving the way for a sequel? If it is then that is something I would very eagerly read.
I would recommend this book to most people as it has so many elements to it. It's rather hard to pin down just one genre!