Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Point Salad in Tabletop Games
Nov 1, 2021
What does “elegant design” mean to you? For me, it is a game that has been well-fleshed out and the rules, components, and mechanics are not over-fluffed. I hear and see so many games being described as having elegant design, and I sit and ponder sometimes because I have played the game in question and it certainly doesn’t follow my personal interpretation of the term. Point Salad, however, is the perfect example of elegant design – to me. Follow along to learn how such a simple game can cause such great experiences.
Simply put, Point Salad is a tableau-building game where players are drafting cards with specific scoring rules and sets of the six different suits to maximize the scoring of their drafted score cards. Each card in the game is double-sided, with one side showing a vegetable and the other side showing a unique scoring system. The player who earns the most points at the end of the game will be the winner and be forced to eat a salad reflecting their drafted veggies from the game. All right, that isn’t true, but they CAN gloat as much as they please.
To setup, construct the deck as outlined in the rules per the number of players. Shuffle the deck and roughly divide into three stacks, point side up. From these stacks place out two cards, veggie side up, below them. Choose the first player and the harvesting may begin!
On a turn, the active player may choose to draft one point card or two veggie cards from those visible in the market. They now place the cards in their personal tableau in front of themselves and the turn moves to the next player. The game continues in this fashion of drafting one or two cards every turn until all cards have been drafted.
Once all cards are drafted from the market, players analyze their scoring cards and determine points using the veggie cards they drafted. As each point card depicts a unique scoring set, each player may end with wildly different score totals. The player with the most points is the winner!
Components. This one is easy. It’s a deck of 108 double-sided cards and a tiny set of rules. The cards are all great quality and feature the most clear and appropriate art by Dylan Mangini. I have grown to really love his artwork on different games – I really dig his style. Components in this one are wonderful and I am considering sleeving the game because I just want to keep it pristine through the years.
It is certainly no surprise that I adore this game. Honestly, I only even gave it a shot because my friend Bethany, of Ryan and Bethany Board Game Reviews, placed it in one of her Top 10 lists and I had oftentimes simply passed it up at the FLGS. I am super glad she turned me on to this one, as it is easily one of my new favorites to bring to the table. I do have one tiny issue with the game. The box reads for ages 8+ but my 5-year-old son has zero problems understanding and playing the game. I mean, I have to read (and sometimes explain) the point cards to him, but I love seeing him think about and work through some tactics while playing.
I think that for me and my family, Point Salad fills a nice little niche in my collection. It is an excellent introduction to both drafting and tableau-building that other games can build upon for us. I very much enjoy the possibility of never playing the same game twice as 108 double-sided cards offers such variability and replayability that I hope will keep the game from becoming boring over multiple plays. Right now, though, it is humming along for us, and we are so grateful to Miss Bethany for introducing us to this little gem! Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a delicious 5 / 6. If you are looking for that low-stress, but very tactical, card game for easygoing nights, pick yourself up a copy of Point Salad.
Simply put, Point Salad is a tableau-building game where players are drafting cards with specific scoring rules and sets of the six different suits to maximize the scoring of their drafted score cards. Each card in the game is double-sided, with one side showing a vegetable and the other side showing a unique scoring system. The player who earns the most points at the end of the game will be the winner and be forced to eat a salad reflecting their drafted veggies from the game. All right, that isn’t true, but they CAN gloat as much as they please.
To setup, construct the deck as outlined in the rules per the number of players. Shuffle the deck and roughly divide into three stacks, point side up. From these stacks place out two cards, veggie side up, below them. Choose the first player and the harvesting may begin!
On a turn, the active player may choose to draft one point card or two veggie cards from those visible in the market. They now place the cards in their personal tableau in front of themselves and the turn moves to the next player. The game continues in this fashion of drafting one or two cards every turn until all cards have been drafted.
Once all cards are drafted from the market, players analyze their scoring cards and determine points using the veggie cards they drafted. As each point card depicts a unique scoring set, each player may end with wildly different score totals. The player with the most points is the winner!
Components. This one is easy. It’s a deck of 108 double-sided cards and a tiny set of rules. The cards are all great quality and feature the most clear and appropriate art by Dylan Mangini. I have grown to really love his artwork on different games – I really dig his style. Components in this one are wonderful and I am considering sleeving the game because I just want to keep it pristine through the years.
It is certainly no surprise that I adore this game. Honestly, I only even gave it a shot because my friend Bethany, of Ryan and Bethany Board Game Reviews, placed it in one of her Top 10 lists and I had oftentimes simply passed it up at the FLGS. I am super glad she turned me on to this one, as it is easily one of my new favorites to bring to the table. I do have one tiny issue with the game. The box reads for ages 8+ but my 5-year-old son has zero problems understanding and playing the game. I mean, I have to read (and sometimes explain) the point cards to him, but I love seeing him think about and work through some tactics while playing.
I think that for me and my family, Point Salad fills a nice little niche in my collection. It is an excellent introduction to both drafting and tableau-building that other games can build upon for us. I very much enjoy the possibility of never playing the same game twice as 108 double-sided cards offers such variability and replayability that I hope will keep the game from becoming boring over multiple plays. Right now, though, it is humming along for us, and we are so grateful to Miss Bethany for introducing us to this little gem! Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a delicious 5 / 6. If you are looking for that low-stress, but very tactical, card game for easygoing nights, pick yourself up a copy of Point Salad.
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Banewreaker in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – Banewreaker Will Make You Feel Bad for Sauron
Contains spoilers, click to show
Very few fantasy fans can get away with admitting that they aren’t all that big into sweeping, high epic fantasy à la Lord of the Rings or the Pern stories or everything that Terry Brooks writes. Many non-fantasy fans, however, can point to these tales as examples of why they aren’t into fantasy. Like it or not, it’s hard not to see the latter group’s point, as a lot of high fantasy is riddled with confusing terminology, rehashed stories, and genre clichés. This is not to say that these stories are bad, per sé, just that they can easily turn off readers who aren’t in the right kind of crowd.
Banewreaker, the first book in Jacqueline Carey’s two-part volume The Sundering, will probably not change any opinions in this respect, then, as it’s sweeping high fantasy to the core. This, as it turns out, is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.
There are some reviews out there that laud Banewreaker as a masterful examination of subjective viewpoints in an epic fantasy turned into a human tragedy by a simple change of perspective. And they are absolutely correct.
There are other reviews, however, that call the book out as a heap of all of the stalest fantasy clichés piled one atop the other in a confusing and pretentious jumble with a shellacking of purple prose for good measure. And they are also absolutely correct.
Let me explain.
For starters, it would be inaccurate to say that this story is full of clichés. This story is clichés. This story is every familiar and used-up trope you would expect from a high fantasy, all of those details that have been done to death in thousands of other versions until almost nothing that happens seems original anymore.
This is what’s going to turn off a lot of people. But the thing is, Banewreaker has to be this way. It wants the reader to look at all of the things that they’ve come to expect from a fantasy epic and then, by shifting the narrative focus, realize that all of these beloved tropes are actually, when you think about it, tragic as hell.
In other words, it’s Lord of the Rings from Sauron’s point of view.
It’s not a riff, though. It’s not goofy like most of the stuff I go in for. It takes its subject just as seriously as the stories that it’s mirroring, and this is what makes the whole story ultimately so gripping and so moving.
The story starts out like many stories of this magnitude, with exposition stretching back to the Dawn of This Particular Creation. In this case, we have a protogenos world god named Uru-Alat who died and gave rise to seven smaller godlike beings called Shapers. First comes Haomane, who becomes the Lord of Thought and sets himself up as head honcho for this ensuing pantheon. Second is Arahila, the Basically a Love Goddess; and third is Satoris, whose purview was “the quickening of the flesh,” which is high fantasy speak for sexy times. Four more Shapers come after this who, for the sake of brevity, we’ll be glossing over.
To summarize the important godly exposition, the Seven Shapers set about shaping the world to the surprise of no one. Haomane creates elves (here called Ellyl, but if you’ve ever even looked at a fantasy, you know that they’re the elves here), Arahila creates humans, and Satoris doesn’t create anything because he’s busy hanging out with dragons and learning their wisdom. Satoris grants his fleshy quickening to the humans but not the elves, because Haomane didn’t want his elves to do that. Then Haomane decides he doesn’t want the humans to do that either, but Satoris refuses to take the gift away again. Conflict escalates, god wars ensue, and the world splits into two continents, with Satoris ostracized from his brethren on one and the remaining Shapers on the other. By the time the dust has settled, Satoris is scarred and burned pitch black, living in a mostly dead land thanks to Haomane’s wrath, but with a dagger in his possession that is the only weapon capable of killing any of the Shapers.
The story itself picks up thousands of years later, with Satoris as the Satan/Sauron stand-in living in a forbidding land surrounded by classically evil things like trolls, giant spiders, and insane people. Since Haomane is the head god, the rest of the world believes Satoris to be a terrible figure of evil and betrayal, while Satoris’s few allies know him as a pitiable and misunderstood figure who only ever wanted to honor his word and do right by his own sense of morality rather than the dictates of his elder brother god king.
From here the plot becomes the typical Army of Good vs. Army of Evil adventure, but with the protagonistic focus on Satoris and his allies. His trolls we see not as a mindless horde but as a simple, honorable people who happily serve their lord because he happily serves them right back. The mad individuals inhabiting his fortress are castaways from normal society with nowhere else to go. And the giant spiders just happen to live there and be bigger than normal, with no sinister intentions beyond that.
And just like that, by actually showing us the home life of the ultimate in evil fantasy tropes, we see how easily one side’s view of evil is another’s view of good. In doing so, Banewreaker becomes perhaps the first sweeping fantasy epic with no real bad guy, just two sides of an unfortunate conflict. Both sides have their likeable characters, both sides seem from their view to be in the right, and pretty soon you, as the reader, will stop cheering for either one, because whenever one person that you like succeeds it means that another person whom you also like is failing.
In fact, the closest thing that this story has to a clearly-labeled “evil” character is the sorceress Lilias, and even then, she’s not evil so much as a woman who has done some bad things for completely understandable reasons. Lilias, in fact, is one of the most pitiful characters in this whole saga of pitiable characters, with her fears and attachments closely mirroring those of most readers, only amplified by her immortality and magical powers. She is afraid of dying. She wants to be more in the grand scheme of things than just another man’s wife or another country’s momentary ruler, both of which would just be tiny moments in a long history. She likes her youth. She likes having pretty things and pretty people around her. And from her interactions with her dragon mentor and apparently only friend, Calandor, we see that she is also capable of intense affection and even love just as she is capable of indulging in self-centered self-interest that, if not particularly a good trait, is also one that she is not alone in possessing.
Banewreaker, then, is a story with a large cast of characters but very few actual heroes or innocents as well as very few outright villains, which is exactly what it sets out to be. Those who love it and those who hate it both seem to blame this quality in particular for their feelings. The biggest complaint leveled against it (that I have read, anyway) is that the people we should be rooting for do not deserve our sympathy, while the people we should be rooting against are more misguided and unwilling to see things in another light than deserving of our scorn.
This is true. But if it’s a flaw, it’s an intentional one. And if it makes you feel like you shouldn’t be cheering for either side at all in this conflict, that’s the point. This is a story of clichés, yes, but it has something that it needs to say about these clichés and, in doing so, about the subjective and impossibly nebulous quality of morality in general.
In short, here again is another fantasy story about the Forces of Good wiping out an entire nation dedicated to their “evil” enemy. And as the story points out, even if you believe in that cause, you’re still wiping out an entire nation of people. No way is there not a downside to that. Seeing things in a black-and-white morality just means crushing a whole lot of important shades of gray underfoot.
Whether or not you like Banewreaker, then, depends in large part upon how much you realize that Carey as an author is being self-aware. As someone who read and still hasn’t stopped being awed over her Kushiel series, I can’t claim complete objectivity in this area, because I came to Banewreaker already in love with her. I can say, however, that unless you have an intense and searing aversion to ornate and sweeping style, this book is worth any fantasy-lover’s time – especially if you’ve ever felt a pang of empathy for all of the poor villainous mooks that fantasy heroes tend to mow down without a thought because they were the wrong kind of ugly.
Banewreaker, the first book in Jacqueline Carey’s two-part volume The Sundering, will probably not change any opinions in this respect, then, as it’s sweeping high fantasy to the core. This, as it turns out, is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.
There are some reviews out there that laud Banewreaker as a masterful examination of subjective viewpoints in an epic fantasy turned into a human tragedy by a simple change of perspective. And they are absolutely correct.
There are other reviews, however, that call the book out as a heap of all of the stalest fantasy clichés piled one atop the other in a confusing and pretentious jumble with a shellacking of purple prose for good measure. And they are also absolutely correct.
Let me explain.
For starters, it would be inaccurate to say that this story is full of clichés. This story is clichés. This story is every familiar and used-up trope you would expect from a high fantasy, all of those details that have been done to death in thousands of other versions until almost nothing that happens seems original anymore.
This is what’s going to turn off a lot of people. But the thing is, Banewreaker has to be this way. It wants the reader to look at all of the things that they’ve come to expect from a fantasy epic and then, by shifting the narrative focus, realize that all of these beloved tropes are actually, when you think about it, tragic as hell.
In other words, it’s Lord of the Rings from Sauron’s point of view.
It’s not a riff, though. It’s not goofy like most of the stuff I go in for. It takes its subject just as seriously as the stories that it’s mirroring, and this is what makes the whole story ultimately so gripping and so moving.
The story starts out like many stories of this magnitude, with exposition stretching back to the Dawn of This Particular Creation. In this case, we have a protogenos world god named Uru-Alat who died and gave rise to seven smaller godlike beings called Shapers. First comes Haomane, who becomes the Lord of Thought and sets himself up as head honcho for this ensuing pantheon. Second is Arahila, the Basically a Love Goddess; and third is Satoris, whose purview was “the quickening of the flesh,” which is high fantasy speak for sexy times. Four more Shapers come after this who, for the sake of brevity, we’ll be glossing over.
To summarize the important godly exposition, the Seven Shapers set about shaping the world to the surprise of no one. Haomane creates elves (here called Ellyl, but if you’ve ever even looked at a fantasy, you know that they’re the elves here), Arahila creates humans, and Satoris doesn’t create anything because he’s busy hanging out with dragons and learning their wisdom. Satoris grants his fleshy quickening to the humans but not the elves, because Haomane didn’t want his elves to do that. Then Haomane decides he doesn’t want the humans to do that either, but Satoris refuses to take the gift away again. Conflict escalates, god wars ensue, and the world splits into two continents, with Satoris ostracized from his brethren on one and the remaining Shapers on the other. By the time the dust has settled, Satoris is scarred and burned pitch black, living in a mostly dead land thanks to Haomane’s wrath, but with a dagger in his possession that is the only weapon capable of killing any of the Shapers.
The story itself picks up thousands of years later, with Satoris as the Satan/Sauron stand-in living in a forbidding land surrounded by classically evil things like trolls, giant spiders, and insane people. Since Haomane is the head god, the rest of the world believes Satoris to be a terrible figure of evil and betrayal, while Satoris’s few allies know him as a pitiable and misunderstood figure who only ever wanted to honor his word and do right by his own sense of morality rather than the dictates of his elder brother god king.
From here the plot becomes the typical Army of Good vs. Army of Evil adventure, but with the protagonistic focus on Satoris and his allies. His trolls we see not as a mindless horde but as a simple, honorable people who happily serve their lord because he happily serves them right back. The mad individuals inhabiting his fortress are castaways from normal society with nowhere else to go. And the giant spiders just happen to live there and be bigger than normal, with no sinister intentions beyond that.
And just like that, by actually showing us the home life of the ultimate in evil fantasy tropes, we see how easily one side’s view of evil is another’s view of good. In doing so, Banewreaker becomes perhaps the first sweeping fantasy epic with no real bad guy, just two sides of an unfortunate conflict. Both sides have their likeable characters, both sides seem from their view to be in the right, and pretty soon you, as the reader, will stop cheering for either one, because whenever one person that you like succeeds it means that another person whom you also like is failing.
In fact, the closest thing that this story has to a clearly-labeled “evil” character is the sorceress Lilias, and even then, she’s not evil so much as a woman who has done some bad things for completely understandable reasons. Lilias, in fact, is one of the most pitiful characters in this whole saga of pitiable characters, with her fears and attachments closely mirroring those of most readers, only amplified by her immortality and magical powers. She is afraid of dying. She wants to be more in the grand scheme of things than just another man’s wife or another country’s momentary ruler, both of which would just be tiny moments in a long history. She likes her youth. She likes having pretty things and pretty people around her. And from her interactions with her dragon mentor and apparently only friend, Calandor, we see that she is also capable of intense affection and even love just as she is capable of indulging in self-centered self-interest that, if not particularly a good trait, is also one that she is not alone in possessing.
Banewreaker, then, is a story with a large cast of characters but very few actual heroes or innocents as well as very few outright villains, which is exactly what it sets out to be. Those who love it and those who hate it both seem to blame this quality in particular for their feelings. The biggest complaint leveled against it (that I have read, anyway) is that the people we should be rooting for do not deserve our sympathy, while the people we should be rooting against are more misguided and unwilling to see things in another light than deserving of our scorn.
This is true. But if it’s a flaw, it’s an intentional one. And if it makes you feel like you shouldn’t be cheering for either side at all in this conflict, that’s the point. This is a story of clichés, yes, but it has something that it needs to say about these clichés and, in doing so, about the subjective and impossibly nebulous quality of morality in general.
In short, here again is another fantasy story about the Forces of Good wiping out an entire nation dedicated to their “evil” enemy. And as the story points out, even if you believe in that cause, you’re still wiping out an entire nation of people. No way is there not a downside to that. Seeing things in a black-and-white morality just means crushing a whole lot of important shades of gray underfoot.
Whether or not you like Banewreaker, then, depends in large part upon how much you realize that Carey as an author is being self-aware. As someone who read and still hasn’t stopped being awed over her Kushiel series, I can’t claim complete objectivity in this area, because I came to Banewreaker already in love with her. I can say, however, that unless you have an intense and searing aversion to ornate and sweeping style, this book is worth any fantasy-lover’s time – especially if you’ve ever felt a pang of empathy for all of the poor villainous mooks that fantasy heroes tend to mow down without a thought because they were the wrong kind of ugly.
Kaysee Hood (83 KP) rated Attachments in Books
Nov 16, 2017
Unconventional Romance (3 more)
Read Life Issues
Movie/Book References
Friendships
Love at First...E-mail?
I've seen some low scored reviews for this book on GR and I realized it may keep some people from reading it, but here are some points I think some should consider before not giving Attachments a chance:
1. This is Rainbow Rowell's first published novel, so of course for some it doesn't hold the magic like Eleanor & Park. Keep in mind many first books never hold against later published works, but are still good or why would the author be allowed to continue?
2. Even though it was published in 2011, it is based in 1999/2000 for plot reasons as to why Lincoln would have his job. This may offset some readers who might not realize how different 1999 is to 2017 Internet use wise for jobs.
3. The lack of reading into who and why the characters are as they are. In a way, it is the adult version of Fangirl, expect the roles are flipped a tad bit.
Anyway, I loved Attachments because it stayed true to Rowell's style, yet it felt raw compared to how she writes now. There is the unconventional love story of a man falling in love with a woman through the e-mails he reads as part of his job to ensure people are working and not nonsense while on the job. There's characters of all sorts with real world problems and real life flaws. There are topics covered of overbearing mothers and mothers who are too cruel both because of their own life. There is men who never want to be tied down, yet one does due to advice and the right woman. The book covers pieces life without taking from the plot whatsoever.
Lincoln O'Neil is a 28-year-old who could have been a successful man with a normal day shift job if a break up had not left him shattered nine years before. Maybe also if his mother had not coddled him, even though she clearly meant well as it is clear him and his sister, Eve, might have been her whole life. Yet we would not have the awkward, shy man working a the swing shift in the IT office as a "security officer" fixing computers in his spare time when he isn't reading through e-mails that come up flagged in the Webfence program. Apparently the security part was ensuring no one at the newspaper office was using the Internet to look at porn, gamble, or idle chit chat instead of working. Not quite was Lincoln had pictured and he doesn't enjoy reading people's exchanges, but the money is good and will grant him the chance to move out his mom's sooner rather than later.
His mundane routine and nothingness during his shift is filled with some enjoyment as Lincoln reads the e-mails flagged from Beth Fremont and Jennifer Scribner-Snyder. There is nothing harmful. Innocent discussions of water cooler talk, life, relationships, and gossip. As much as he knows it is wrong to continue to read their messages about their lives without flagging them as he would anyone else Lincoln cannot help but to get a kick out of the e-mails.
However it soon becomes apparent Lincoln has fallen for Beth despite the fact he has no idea what she looks like or who is she outside of work. Not to mention she has a boyfriend, Chris, who even though she may rant about to Jennifer, she obviously has not intent on breaking ties with. Not for someone like Lincoln anyway. So he spends his time in turmoil trying to decide if a new job is in order, going back to college, or finding a woman to focus his attention on (which are the very things he tries to do). He even tries to ignore the e-mails, yet can't. He cannot help, but feel for Jennifer's worry over having a baby even though her husband wants one. He cannot help, but captivated by their friendship. He cannot help his feelings for Beth for who she is.
It doesn't help Beth has spotted him labeling him as "A Cute Guy" when he never realized she was around. It is like a game of cat and mouse between them then. Beth still unaware he is reading her e-mails. Lincoln unaware of how often she is close to him even when she is going out of her way to find him.
Thus a budding romance is born. But how much of a romance can it be when Beth has Chris and Lincoln can barely look a woman in the eyes?
1. This is Rainbow Rowell's first published novel, so of course for some it doesn't hold the magic like Eleanor & Park. Keep in mind many first books never hold against later published works, but are still good or why would the author be allowed to continue?
2. Even though it was published in 2011, it is based in 1999/2000 for plot reasons as to why Lincoln would have his job. This may offset some readers who might not realize how different 1999 is to 2017 Internet use wise for jobs.
3. The lack of reading into who and why the characters are as they are. In a way, it is the adult version of Fangirl, expect the roles are flipped a tad bit.
Anyway, I loved Attachments because it stayed true to Rowell's style, yet it felt raw compared to how she writes now. There is the unconventional love story of a man falling in love with a woman through the e-mails he reads as part of his job to ensure people are working and not nonsense while on the job. There's characters of all sorts with real world problems and real life flaws. There are topics covered of overbearing mothers and mothers who are too cruel both because of their own life. There is men who never want to be tied down, yet one does due to advice and the right woman. The book covers pieces life without taking from the plot whatsoever.
Lincoln O'Neil is a 28-year-old who could have been a successful man with a normal day shift job if a break up had not left him shattered nine years before. Maybe also if his mother had not coddled him, even though she clearly meant well as it is clear him and his sister, Eve, might have been her whole life. Yet we would not have the awkward, shy man working a the swing shift in the IT office as a "security officer" fixing computers in his spare time when he isn't reading through e-mails that come up flagged in the Webfence program. Apparently the security part was ensuring no one at the newspaper office was using the Internet to look at porn, gamble, or idle chit chat instead of working. Not quite was Lincoln had pictured and he doesn't enjoy reading people's exchanges, but the money is good and will grant him the chance to move out his mom's sooner rather than later.
His mundane routine and nothingness during his shift is filled with some enjoyment as Lincoln reads the e-mails flagged from Beth Fremont and Jennifer Scribner-Snyder. There is nothing harmful. Innocent discussions of water cooler talk, life, relationships, and gossip. As much as he knows it is wrong to continue to read their messages about their lives without flagging them as he would anyone else Lincoln cannot help but to get a kick out of the e-mails.
However it soon becomes apparent Lincoln has fallen for Beth despite the fact he has no idea what she looks like or who is she outside of work. Not to mention she has a boyfriend, Chris, who even though she may rant about to Jennifer, she obviously has not intent on breaking ties with. Not for someone like Lincoln anyway. So he spends his time in turmoil trying to decide if a new job is in order, going back to college, or finding a woman to focus his attention on (which are the very things he tries to do). He even tries to ignore the e-mails, yet can't. He cannot help, but feel for Jennifer's worry over having a baby even though her husband wants one. He cannot help, but captivated by their friendship. He cannot help his feelings for Beth for who she is.
It doesn't help Beth has spotted him labeling him as "A Cute Guy" when he never realized she was around. It is like a game of cat and mouse between them then. Beth still unaware he is reading her e-mails. Lincoln unaware of how often she is close to him even when she is going out of her way to find him.
Thus a budding romance is born. But how much of a romance can it be when Beth has Chris and Lincoln can barely look a woman in the eyes?
Lee (2222 KP) rated Annabelle: Creation (2017) in Movies
Aug 31, 2017
Effective scares (1 more)
The young stars are brilliant
Surprising decent entry in The Conjuring universe
I'm a big fan of The Conjuring. It's easily one of my favourite scary movies in recent years, successfully hitting the right notes for me when it comes to big scares. I wasn't such a fan of the opening scenes featuring Annabelle though, and The Conjuring 2 didn't quite do it for me either, so when the spin off Annabelle movie came out in 2014, I gave it a miss. Even more so when it received some pretty average reviews. It's been on my Netflix watch-list for sometime now, and I'm sure I will watch it out of curiosity at some point, but for now I can take it or leave it. When I saw the trailer for Annabelle: Creation though, it definitely grabbed my interest. More so than the previous movie. The fact that it was set before the last one and could be watched without needing to have seen it either was also a big plus point as far as I was concerned.
This movie takes us right back to the creation of the Annabelle doll itself, before introducing us to the evil part that we're familiar with (although to be fair, even if the doll wasn't evil, who the hell is going to want a doll that looks like that?!). It's 1957 and Samuel Mullins lives with his wife Esther and their young daughter. Samuel is a master toy-maker, handcrafting dolls in the workshop located within the grounds of their house. But tragedy strikes one day, and the family is destroyed when the daughter is killed.
The story picks up again 12 years later with a group of orphan girls who are traveling with their caretaker, Sister Charlotte, to go and live with the Mullins in their large, empty house. They're welcomed inside by Mr Mullins who tells them that their rooms are all upstairs. There's a locked room upstairs that they're not to go into, but you kind of know they will do at some point, and the Mullins room is downstairs. Mrs Mullins is now bed-ridden following an event that we do not yet know about, but otherwise the girls are free to go explore and enjoy the house as they wish. One of the younger girls, Janice, can only walk with the aid of a leg brace and crutch, so is happy to discover that there is even a stair-lift installed to help her get upstairs.
Not much happens for the first twenty minutes or so, but the movie does an excellent job of introducing us to the large isolated house and the potential for scares to be had later in the movie. That stair-lift I just mentioned - it goes nice and slow and only works if you've managed to click the seat-belt in. The nearby barn - that's got a big scarecrow hanging inside with a terrifying evil looking sandbag face. There's a deep, sinister looking well nearby too. Inside there's an out of use dumbwaiter lift and a whole host of other places to hide. You know it's all going to be put to good use later on, and with Janice not being able to walk so well, you can't help thinking that this is only going to add the tension even more.
When things do kick off, it's all very well executed. There are actually some surprisingly effective BANG scares following moments of quietness and some genuinely creepy stuff of nightmares. And yes, that tension that I mentioned involving Janice and her disability, is played to maximum effect. Janice and her room mate Linda are both brilliant in this and are totally convincing as they come to terms with and try fighting back against the evil that's plaguing them.
For me, this was almost as good as The Conjuring. I got a similar feeling from this, particularly with regard to the setting, the cast and the type of scares involved, which I really liked. As a side note, I also really love how this type of movie tends to attract groups of teenage boys and girls to the cinema. There's nothing like watching this in a dark screening, hearing a mixture of fake bravado from the boys along with gasps/petrified hyperventilating from both the boys and girls! It really does add to the overall enjoyment!
This movie takes us right back to the creation of the Annabelle doll itself, before introducing us to the evil part that we're familiar with (although to be fair, even if the doll wasn't evil, who the hell is going to want a doll that looks like that?!). It's 1957 and Samuel Mullins lives with his wife Esther and their young daughter. Samuel is a master toy-maker, handcrafting dolls in the workshop located within the grounds of their house. But tragedy strikes one day, and the family is destroyed when the daughter is killed.
The story picks up again 12 years later with a group of orphan girls who are traveling with their caretaker, Sister Charlotte, to go and live with the Mullins in their large, empty house. They're welcomed inside by Mr Mullins who tells them that their rooms are all upstairs. There's a locked room upstairs that they're not to go into, but you kind of know they will do at some point, and the Mullins room is downstairs. Mrs Mullins is now bed-ridden following an event that we do not yet know about, but otherwise the girls are free to go explore and enjoy the house as they wish. One of the younger girls, Janice, can only walk with the aid of a leg brace and crutch, so is happy to discover that there is even a stair-lift installed to help her get upstairs.
Not much happens for the first twenty minutes or so, but the movie does an excellent job of introducing us to the large isolated house and the potential for scares to be had later in the movie. That stair-lift I just mentioned - it goes nice and slow and only works if you've managed to click the seat-belt in. The nearby barn - that's got a big scarecrow hanging inside with a terrifying evil looking sandbag face. There's a deep, sinister looking well nearby too. Inside there's an out of use dumbwaiter lift and a whole host of other places to hide. You know it's all going to be put to good use later on, and with Janice not being able to walk so well, you can't help thinking that this is only going to add the tension even more.
When things do kick off, it's all very well executed. There are actually some surprisingly effective BANG scares following moments of quietness and some genuinely creepy stuff of nightmares. And yes, that tension that I mentioned involving Janice and her disability, is played to maximum effect. Janice and her room mate Linda are both brilliant in this and are totally convincing as they come to terms with and try fighting back against the evil that's plaguing them.
For me, this was almost as good as The Conjuring. I got a similar feeling from this, particularly with regard to the setting, the cast and the type of scares involved, which I really liked. As a side note, I also really love how this type of movie tends to attract groups of teenage boys and girls to the cinema. There's nothing like watching this in a dark screening, hearing a mixture of fake bravado from the boys along with gasps/petrified hyperventilating from both the boys and girls! It really does add to the overall enjoyment!
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated The Priory of the Orange Tree in Books
May 3, 2019
AMAZING epic fantasy.
Holy COW, you guys. I keep saying “I haven’t read much epic fantasy lately” and “I don’t have time to read such long books/series” but I made an exception for Priory, and I’m SO glad I did. Just WOW.
So the basic premise of this world is that The Nameless One (some gigantic evil dragon) was locked away a thousand years ago, and all his minions with him. The exact details of how and who did it have been mostly lost to history. It’s said that as long as the House of Berethnet rules Inys, he’ll never rise again, and Berethnet queens always have one child, a daughter. The current queen, however, is unwed, and minions of The Nameless One have begun rising, and in fact have conquered a few neighboring nations. We have three main factions of countries; The East, who have dragon riders, but make a distinction between their dragons, who are aquatic and identify with the stars, and the evil minions of The Nameless One, who are full of fire. Then we have Virtudom, which is headed by Inys, and is a coalition of countries who have made a religion of the Knightly Virtues. This is the West, and they make no distinction between the draconic servants of The Nameless One and the water dragons of the East. This has forced a split between the West and the East, because Virtudom won’t have anything to do with countries that have anything to do with dragons, because most of what they see is the third faction – the Draconic countries. These are countries conquered by minions of the Nameless One, and they are full of chaos, fire, evil, and plague.
This is the world the book opens on. Most of our main characters – Queen Sabran, her handmaiden Ead, the dragonrider Tané – are women, but we also have Doctor Niclays Roos, an alchemist, and Lord Arteloth Beck, a friend of the Queen. In this world, women are just as capable as men, and are treated as such. There are female knights, and same-sex relationships are just as ordinary as opposite-sex ones. There is a bit too much moral emphasis placed on monogamy/sex within the bounds of marriage, but I guess that’s “Knightly Virtue” for you. Skin color is only mentioned a couple of times, but I seem to remember Lord Arteloth being described as very dark-skinned, and Ead as golden-brown. Rather nice to see a fantasy NOT all caught up in racial and gender differences. Not to say there isn’t a fair amount of bigotry, but in this book it’s based pretty much solely on nationality and religion. And when the biggest sticking point is “do you like evil dragons or not” that kind of makes sense!
I think the only thing I didn’t like about this book was its size. It’s unwieldy to read, at over 800 pages! I’m not sure why they didn’t break it into a duology. Regardless, if you have the choice, I’d read it on Kindle. It would be far easier to handle. I’m not complaining about the amount of text, mind you. Just the sheer physical size. I can’t imagine the story being told in less time. There’s So. Much. Here.
This book goes from Queen Sabran’s court to the dragonrider academy in the East, to the draconic kingdom of Yscalin, to the Abyss where the Nameless One sleeps. We see glittering courts, hidden islands, sweltering tunnels through volcanic mountains, and deep valleys with secret magic trees. We battle wyrms and cockatrices, swim through endless seas with dragonriders, sail through storms with pirate crews, and navigate the trickiest of diplomatic matters with courtiers. The Priory of the Orange Tree paints an elaborate, incredibly complex world and I am absolutely here for it.
Okay, so one tiny quibble – while I liked the romance, I feel like it started kind of oddly. I didn’t see any reason for the initial spark. From there, it progressed perfectly, but I just didn’t get the beginning.
This book has multiple queer couples! There’s at least one same-sex couple mentioned as attending a party; Doctor Roos spends a lot of time mourning his dead lover, and there’s the lesbian romance between a couple of main characters. And one character has at least strong affection for a man before falling in love with a woman; I think she was in love with both. No trans or ace rep, but plenty of gay, lesbian, and bi!
This is hands-down the best book I’ve read so far this year. It took me three days – it’s a big book – but it is absolutely fantastic.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
So the basic premise of this world is that The Nameless One (some gigantic evil dragon) was locked away a thousand years ago, and all his minions with him. The exact details of how and who did it have been mostly lost to history. It’s said that as long as the House of Berethnet rules Inys, he’ll never rise again, and Berethnet queens always have one child, a daughter. The current queen, however, is unwed, and minions of The Nameless One have begun rising, and in fact have conquered a few neighboring nations. We have three main factions of countries; The East, who have dragon riders, but make a distinction between their dragons, who are aquatic and identify with the stars, and the evil minions of The Nameless One, who are full of fire. Then we have Virtudom, which is headed by Inys, and is a coalition of countries who have made a religion of the Knightly Virtues. This is the West, and they make no distinction between the draconic servants of The Nameless One and the water dragons of the East. This has forced a split between the West and the East, because Virtudom won’t have anything to do with countries that have anything to do with dragons, because most of what they see is the third faction – the Draconic countries. These are countries conquered by minions of the Nameless One, and they are full of chaos, fire, evil, and plague.
This is the world the book opens on. Most of our main characters – Queen Sabran, her handmaiden Ead, the dragonrider Tané – are women, but we also have Doctor Niclays Roos, an alchemist, and Lord Arteloth Beck, a friend of the Queen. In this world, women are just as capable as men, and are treated as such. There are female knights, and same-sex relationships are just as ordinary as opposite-sex ones. There is a bit too much moral emphasis placed on monogamy/sex within the bounds of marriage, but I guess that’s “Knightly Virtue” for you. Skin color is only mentioned a couple of times, but I seem to remember Lord Arteloth being described as very dark-skinned, and Ead as golden-brown. Rather nice to see a fantasy NOT all caught up in racial and gender differences. Not to say there isn’t a fair amount of bigotry, but in this book it’s based pretty much solely on nationality and religion. And when the biggest sticking point is “do you like evil dragons or not” that kind of makes sense!
I think the only thing I didn’t like about this book was its size. It’s unwieldy to read, at over 800 pages! I’m not sure why they didn’t break it into a duology. Regardless, if you have the choice, I’d read it on Kindle. It would be far easier to handle. I’m not complaining about the amount of text, mind you. Just the sheer physical size. I can’t imagine the story being told in less time. There’s So. Much. Here.
This book goes from Queen Sabran’s court to the dragonrider academy in the East, to the draconic kingdom of Yscalin, to the Abyss where the Nameless One sleeps. We see glittering courts, hidden islands, sweltering tunnels through volcanic mountains, and deep valleys with secret magic trees. We battle wyrms and cockatrices, swim through endless seas with dragonriders, sail through storms with pirate crews, and navigate the trickiest of diplomatic matters with courtiers. The Priory of the Orange Tree paints an elaborate, incredibly complex world and I am absolutely here for it.
Okay, so one tiny quibble – while I liked the romance, I feel like it started kind of oddly. I didn’t see any reason for the initial spark. From there, it progressed perfectly, but I just didn’t get the beginning.
This book has multiple queer couples! There’s at least one same-sex couple mentioned as attending a party; Doctor Roos spends a lot of time mourning his dead lover, and there’s the lesbian romance between a couple of main characters. And one character has at least strong affection for a man before falling in love with a woman; I think she was in love with both. No trans or ace rep, but plenty of gay, lesbian, and bi!
This is hands-down the best book I’ve read so far this year. It took me three days – it’s a big book – but it is absolutely fantastic.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 13, 2019
JUSTICE FOR THE LEAGUE
Contains spoilers, click to show
As much as it pains me to acknowledge it, this film got slaughtered upon its' release (and has endured much ridicule ever since)! Personally speaking....I don't get why.
Everyone and their dog - in reviewing this movie, quote the poor CGI, the fact that Steppenwolf is an ineffective villain, the obvious mish-mash of two directorial styles, weak storyline, oh...and the whole moustache thing. Bore, bore, bore. If anyone comes up with a valid reason for why they hate this film that they haven't read anywhere else a dozen times before then I might entertain them......nah, I won't, because I loved JL!
The opening scene shows us some 'amateur' style recorded footage of a brief conversation with Superman - a very short sequence that was clearly filmed by Joss Whedon. And yes, it is very obvious - and would be to someone unaware of the whole 'moustache-gate' affair, that something's wrong with Henry Cavill's upper lip. Does that detract from the experience? Is it really that much a big deal? No, it is not. And that's all I'll say on that aspect.
There is a very basic plot concerning Steppenwolf and his return to Earth to reclaim the three Mother Boxes which - when brought together, form 'The Unity' with which he hopes to transform the planet and get back in favour with his nephew (Darkseid). These boxes were left on Earth a long time ago following a battle with Steppenwolf (shown in Flashback) and placed into the care of the Atlanteans, the Amazons, and the Tribes of Man. We are given this background exposition fairly early on in proceedings from Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) which effectively sums up the gist of the movie - no criticism there. The first half of the film concerns Diana and Bruce Wayne's (Batman) efforts to bring together a small group of Meta-Humans in order to tackle the imminent threat balanced against Steppenwolf's successful recovery of two of the Boxes. Do we need a more complex plot?
After an initial encounter with the villain of the piece in which the newly formed League are knocked on their proverbial backsides Batman comes up with a way to resurrect the deceased Superman, involving a Mother Box, the recovered Kryptonian Scout Ship, and the Speedforce. To quote The Flash (aka Barry Allen, aka Ezra Miller) things go a bit 'Pet Sematary-y' as the resurrected Man Of Steel goes up against the JL in a confused fit of rage. The sequence depicting the skirmish is a highlight of the movie, and anyone who got a little annoyed t how much Batman was hell bent on persecuting Supes in BVS will get some satisfaction from hearing the line "Do you bleed?"!
It isn't long before the Superman we all know and love (although perhaps not the one from his darker portrayal in the previous two movies in which he appeared) returns - thanks to some intervention from Lois Lane, and joins his fellow heroes in their final battle with Steppenwolf.
Simple plot I agree but this is a story about individuals coming together in the name of hope. Each character gives enough that the audience cares about them, even if some of them could have been given a bit more to play with (sounds like sequel material to me!). Wonder Woman effectively becomes the Leader of the team - exorcising her demons in the process (see her solo movie for more) and Gal Gadot is great.
The battle scenes are fantastic - the attack on Themyscira by Steppenwolf being one such example, and complemented by the CGI. Yeah, I've heard the whole 'poor CGI' thing but frankly.... whatever?! Had I not stupidly read the reviews before seeing the film I might not have spent the running time watching the villain and thinking "Is he a poor villain?" (I came away thinking "Nah, he worked for me!")
Henry Cavill didn't get half as much screen time as the other characters in the League and it looks as if most of the Zac Snyder material featuring his Superman ended up on the cutting room floor, but he is one of the highlights. I will agree with the critics that WB seriously messed up with their marketing strategy in which they essentially 'excluded him' from all promotional material. I now eagerly await for Man of Steel 2 where we'll get to see more of the 'fun' Supes that we got in this movie.
I saw this film three times at the cinema and now own on Blu Ray. Fantastic film for the JL's first outing on the big screen. And you know what?
You are allowed to enjoy both the Justice League AND The Avengers!!
Everyone and their dog - in reviewing this movie, quote the poor CGI, the fact that Steppenwolf is an ineffective villain, the obvious mish-mash of two directorial styles, weak storyline, oh...and the whole moustache thing. Bore, bore, bore. If anyone comes up with a valid reason for why they hate this film that they haven't read anywhere else a dozen times before then I might entertain them......nah, I won't, because I loved JL!
The opening scene shows us some 'amateur' style recorded footage of a brief conversation with Superman - a very short sequence that was clearly filmed by Joss Whedon. And yes, it is very obvious - and would be to someone unaware of the whole 'moustache-gate' affair, that something's wrong with Henry Cavill's upper lip. Does that detract from the experience? Is it really that much a big deal? No, it is not. And that's all I'll say on that aspect.
There is a very basic plot concerning Steppenwolf and his return to Earth to reclaim the three Mother Boxes which - when brought together, form 'The Unity' with which he hopes to transform the planet and get back in favour with his nephew (Darkseid). These boxes were left on Earth a long time ago following a battle with Steppenwolf (shown in Flashback) and placed into the care of the Atlanteans, the Amazons, and the Tribes of Man. We are given this background exposition fairly early on in proceedings from Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) which effectively sums up the gist of the movie - no criticism there. The first half of the film concerns Diana and Bruce Wayne's (Batman) efforts to bring together a small group of Meta-Humans in order to tackle the imminent threat balanced against Steppenwolf's successful recovery of two of the Boxes. Do we need a more complex plot?
After an initial encounter with the villain of the piece in which the newly formed League are knocked on their proverbial backsides Batman comes up with a way to resurrect the deceased Superman, involving a Mother Box, the recovered Kryptonian Scout Ship, and the Speedforce. To quote The Flash (aka Barry Allen, aka Ezra Miller) things go a bit 'Pet Sematary-y' as the resurrected Man Of Steel goes up against the JL in a confused fit of rage. The sequence depicting the skirmish is a highlight of the movie, and anyone who got a little annoyed t how much Batman was hell bent on persecuting Supes in BVS will get some satisfaction from hearing the line "Do you bleed?"!
It isn't long before the Superman we all know and love (although perhaps not the one from his darker portrayal in the previous two movies in which he appeared) returns - thanks to some intervention from Lois Lane, and joins his fellow heroes in their final battle with Steppenwolf.
Simple plot I agree but this is a story about individuals coming together in the name of hope. Each character gives enough that the audience cares about them, even if some of them could have been given a bit more to play with (sounds like sequel material to me!). Wonder Woman effectively becomes the Leader of the team - exorcising her demons in the process (see her solo movie for more) and Gal Gadot is great.
The battle scenes are fantastic - the attack on Themyscira by Steppenwolf being one such example, and complemented by the CGI. Yeah, I've heard the whole 'poor CGI' thing but frankly.... whatever?! Had I not stupidly read the reviews before seeing the film I might not have spent the running time watching the villain and thinking "Is he a poor villain?" (I came away thinking "Nah, he worked for me!")
Henry Cavill didn't get half as much screen time as the other characters in the League and it looks as if most of the Zac Snyder material featuring his Superman ended up on the cutting room floor, but he is one of the highlights. I will agree with the critics that WB seriously messed up with their marketing strategy in which they essentially 'excluded him' from all promotional material. I now eagerly await for Man of Steel 2 where we'll get to see more of the 'fun' Supes that we got in this movie.
I saw this film three times at the cinema and now own on Blu Ray. Fantastic film for the JL's first outing on the big screen. And you know what?
You are allowed to enjoy both the Justice League AND The Avengers!!
Lee (2222 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
May 31, 2019 (Updated May 31, 2019)
Well, I liked it!
Before heading into Godzilla: King of the Monsters, I saw a lot of wildly mixed reviews online. People were either hating it or loving it, with nobody really feeling anything in-between. Even those cinema goers who were fully prepared for nothing more than a bunch of big monsters fighting alongside insignificant human bystanders were coming away from it fuming. Well, I’m happy to say that I’m putting myself firmly in the ‘loved it’ category, although I do understand and appreciate a lot of the issues that the haters have with it.
Since his appearance in the 2014 movie, and his involvement in the destruction of San Francisco, Godzilla has been keeping a fairly low profile beneath the ocean. He is now closely monitored by monster organisation Monarch, who were introduced to us previously, most notably in the movie Kong: Skull Island. They have a number of outposts dotted around the globe, where they are also tracking various other ‘titans’, most of which are lying dormant. Monarch is currently involved in a conflict with the military, who would rather see the titans wiped out than try and co-exist with them in the way our ancestors did.
In a Chinese outpost, we meet Dr Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga), who is working on a device called ORCA, something which will hopefully allow us to communicate with and control the titans. She’s there with daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) as they test out ORCA on newly hatched titan larva Mothra. Emma’s estranged husband Mark (Kyle Chandler), who helped develop the ORCA device with her, is currently leading a much simpler life, photographing wolves out in the wild having completely distanced himself from Monarch and the titans.
Things start to go wrong though when eco-terrorist Jonah Alan (Charles Dance) kidnaps Emma and Madison, along with the ORCA device. He wants to use ORCA to wake up the remaining titans and there’s a lot of talk about cleansing the earth, restoring balance etc, something which continues to be the motivational theme throughout the movie.
Jonah and his team, with help from Emma, break free a three-headed monster called Ghidorah from within the Antarctic ice, and that’s when things really kick off. Ghidorah assumes the position of King of the Monsters and he and the other titans begin wreaking havoc on planet Earth. When word reaches Mark that his wife and daughter are in danger, not to mention the rest of the world, he returns to work with Monarch. Meanwhile, Godzilla has resurfaced and is en route to Ghidorah, looking for a fight. At the same time Mothra takes herself off to a waterfall, cocooning herself so that she can gloriously emerge a bit later on in the movie.
Godzilla takes a bit of a pounding from Ghidorah, sustaining some serious damage and leaving the fate of the world in jeopardy. But, the fact that the title of this movie declares Godzilla to be the King of Monsters, along with the promotional material for next years ‘Godzilla Vs Kong’ movie that has begun emerging online, should give you a pretty good idea as to whether or not he makes a comeback.
Unfortunately, a lot of the action takes place in murky, rainy darkness, which is disappointing considering all of the marketing artwork that depicts the monsters and their battles in bright, vibrant colour. At times, far too many quick cuts make things difficult to follow – zipping between the action, the destruction and the humans that are in danger because of it. Cutting to the human cast does help to give us a sense of scale and panic but, at this point, they’ve all just become a little irrelevant. A lot of time is spent early on in the movie, introducing us to a lot of characters, with even more to come later on, but the majority of them just have very little to do or be concerned about when the monster fighting begins.
On the flip-side to all of that though, there are more than enough occasions where we find a downtrodden and seriously pissed off Godzilla handing out a satisfying series of beatings to the pretenders to his throne. I became fully invested in the huge scale of it all and what was at stake for the world. Overall I just found the whole thing really enjoyable.
Since his appearance in the 2014 movie, and his involvement in the destruction of San Francisco, Godzilla has been keeping a fairly low profile beneath the ocean. He is now closely monitored by monster organisation Monarch, who were introduced to us previously, most notably in the movie Kong: Skull Island. They have a number of outposts dotted around the globe, where they are also tracking various other ‘titans’, most of which are lying dormant. Monarch is currently involved in a conflict with the military, who would rather see the titans wiped out than try and co-exist with them in the way our ancestors did.
In a Chinese outpost, we meet Dr Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga), who is working on a device called ORCA, something which will hopefully allow us to communicate with and control the titans. She’s there with daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) as they test out ORCA on newly hatched titan larva Mothra. Emma’s estranged husband Mark (Kyle Chandler), who helped develop the ORCA device with her, is currently leading a much simpler life, photographing wolves out in the wild having completely distanced himself from Monarch and the titans.
Things start to go wrong though when eco-terrorist Jonah Alan (Charles Dance) kidnaps Emma and Madison, along with the ORCA device. He wants to use ORCA to wake up the remaining titans and there’s a lot of talk about cleansing the earth, restoring balance etc, something which continues to be the motivational theme throughout the movie.
Jonah and his team, with help from Emma, break free a three-headed monster called Ghidorah from within the Antarctic ice, and that’s when things really kick off. Ghidorah assumes the position of King of the Monsters and he and the other titans begin wreaking havoc on planet Earth. When word reaches Mark that his wife and daughter are in danger, not to mention the rest of the world, he returns to work with Monarch. Meanwhile, Godzilla has resurfaced and is en route to Ghidorah, looking for a fight. At the same time Mothra takes herself off to a waterfall, cocooning herself so that she can gloriously emerge a bit later on in the movie.
Godzilla takes a bit of a pounding from Ghidorah, sustaining some serious damage and leaving the fate of the world in jeopardy. But, the fact that the title of this movie declares Godzilla to be the King of Monsters, along with the promotional material for next years ‘Godzilla Vs Kong’ movie that has begun emerging online, should give you a pretty good idea as to whether or not he makes a comeback.
Unfortunately, a lot of the action takes place in murky, rainy darkness, which is disappointing considering all of the marketing artwork that depicts the monsters and their battles in bright, vibrant colour. At times, far too many quick cuts make things difficult to follow – zipping between the action, the destruction and the humans that are in danger because of it. Cutting to the human cast does help to give us a sense of scale and panic but, at this point, they’ve all just become a little irrelevant. A lot of time is spent early on in the movie, introducing us to a lot of characters, with even more to come later on, but the majority of them just have very little to do or be concerned about when the monster fighting begins.
On the flip-side to all of that though, there are more than enough occasions where we find a downtrodden and seriously pissed off Godzilla handing out a satisfying series of beatings to the pretenders to his throne. I became fully invested in the huge scale of it all and what was at stake for the world. Overall I just found the whole thing really enjoyable.