Search
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Breathless ( Scarlet Suffragette book 2) in Books
Mar 29, 2022
54 of 230
Kindle
Breathless (Scarlet Suffragette book 2)
By Nicola Claire
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Nicola Claire's captivating new Gothic romance series continues with a dark and sinister London City at the end of the nineteenth century - brightened by a fearless and talented heroine and a loyal and secretive police inspector...
Determined doctor? Interfering busybody? Fearless fighter?
The London of Anna Cassidy's memories is not the London she faces today. Having proved her worth as a physician, Dr Cassidy finds herself pitted against the stolid attitude of a male-dominated society.
But it's not only society she has to contend with.
A criminal mastermind has set themselves up in London, England; chosen the dirty streets of Whitechapel and Lambeth as their stage. Competing against a devious and cunning opponent sets Anna and her closest friends off on a dire adventure, which could culminate in a loss so great Anna may never recover again.
Steadfast police inspector? Loyal guardian? Caring lover?
Anna, however, is not alone. Or, at least, she won't be once Inspector Kelly finds her. Facing the ghosts of his past, Andrew Kelly rushes to face Anna's enemies and protect the woman he loves.
But Anna is not unable to defend herself.
Proving she needs him is a task Inspector Kelly would gladly undertake. But the city of Andrew's birth is more in the grip of evil machinations than it has ever been, bringing to mind memories of a dark London, ripped to within an inch of its life by a devil known to most simply as Jack.
Andrew knows otherwise. For his secrets are unravelling and within their shadowed corners lies a murderer, a poisoner, and a villain so deceitful that nothing is what it appears to be.
A gritty, twisted, and authentic Victorian romantic suspense, sure to rip you apart... just like old Jack.
Read preview >
This was so good I love the era and the references to Jack the Ripper and Sherlock Holmes. It has fabulous characters both good and bad. The story kept you wanting to read more. I’m not one for huge relationship storylines but this I loved. Highly recommended if you like murder mystery set in a gothic Victorian era.
Kindle
Breathless (Scarlet Suffragette book 2)
By Nicola Claire
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Nicola Claire's captivating new Gothic romance series continues with a dark and sinister London City at the end of the nineteenth century - brightened by a fearless and talented heroine and a loyal and secretive police inspector...
Determined doctor? Interfering busybody? Fearless fighter?
The London of Anna Cassidy's memories is not the London she faces today. Having proved her worth as a physician, Dr Cassidy finds herself pitted against the stolid attitude of a male-dominated society.
But it's not only society she has to contend with.
A criminal mastermind has set themselves up in London, England; chosen the dirty streets of Whitechapel and Lambeth as their stage. Competing against a devious and cunning opponent sets Anna and her closest friends off on a dire adventure, which could culminate in a loss so great Anna may never recover again.
Steadfast police inspector? Loyal guardian? Caring lover?
Anna, however, is not alone. Or, at least, she won't be once Inspector Kelly finds her. Facing the ghosts of his past, Andrew Kelly rushes to face Anna's enemies and protect the woman he loves.
But Anna is not unable to defend herself.
Proving she needs him is a task Inspector Kelly would gladly undertake. But the city of Andrew's birth is more in the grip of evil machinations than it has ever been, bringing to mind memories of a dark London, ripped to within an inch of its life by a devil known to most simply as Jack.
Andrew knows otherwise. For his secrets are unravelling and within their shadowed corners lies a murderer, a poisoner, and a villain so deceitful that nothing is what it appears to be.
A gritty, twisted, and authentic Victorian romantic suspense, sure to rip you apart... just like old Jack.
Read preview >
This was so good I love the era and the references to Jack the Ripper and Sherlock Holmes. It has fabulous characters both good and bad. The story kept you wanting to read more. I’m not one for huge relationship storylines but this I loved. Highly recommended if you like murder mystery set in a gothic Victorian era.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Over countless decades the legend of King Arthur has been depicted across a range of mediums. The timeless tale of love, betrayals, action, and adventure has remained a popular and enduring tale ever since it was first introduced.
Director Guy Ritchie has crafted a very different take on the tale as he even contributed to the screenplay for the film. As such “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”, is brimming with many of his signature elements ranging from a caper story and characters who are filled with quirks and issues.
Charlie Hunnam plays Arthur who is orphaned at an early age when his family is betrayed by his Uncle Vortigern (Jude Law). Arthur is raised in a London brothel with no knowledge of his true lineage.
Arthur learns combat and life on the streets and quickly learns how to make money through various dealings, some of which are not exactly on the level. This is where Ritchie shows his trademark style as there is a caper element to the early part of the story and a scene of Arthur and his pals walking through the aftermath of an event is complete with his signature, start, stop, and rewind moments that made up his recent “Sherlock Holmes” films.
Naturally events put Arthur and Vortigern against each other when Arthur is able to pull the legendary Excalibur from a stone as part of a test imposed on all young men of a certain age.
With his true identity in place, Arthur is marked by his Uncle as he is the only threat to his power and this forces Arthur into the protection of the resistance where he must embrace his past and find his destiny.
The film does take some liberties with the Arthurian Legend and does go a bit heavy on the FX especially with the inclusion of giant creatures which made me think at times I was watching something from the “Lord of the Rings”. The film does drag in parts but does rebound with a finale that seemed very video game esque, but sets up future films well. The cast is strong and there is plenty to like about the film as long as you are willing to be patient with the pacing of the film.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/10/king-arthur-legend-sword/
Director Guy Ritchie has crafted a very different take on the tale as he even contributed to the screenplay for the film. As such “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”, is brimming with many of his signature elements ranging from a caper story and characters who are filled with quirks and issues.
Charlie Hunnam plays Arthur who is orphaned at an early age when his family is betrayed by his Uncle Vortigern (Jude Law). Arthur is raised in a London brothel with no knowledge of his true lineage.
Arthur learns combat and life on the streets and quickly learns how to make money through various dealings, some of which are not exactly on the level. This is where Ritchie shows his trademark style as there is a caper element to the early part of the story and a scene of Arthur and his pals walking through the aftermath of an event is complete with his signature, start, stop, and rewind moments that made up his recent “Sherlock Holmes” films.
Naturally events put Arthur and Vortigern against each other when Arthur is able to pull the legendary Excalibur from a stone as part of a test imposed on all young men of a certain age.
With his true identity in place, Arthur is marked by his Uncle as he is the only threat to his power and this forces Arthur into the protection of the resistance where he must embrace his past and find his destiny.
The film does take some liberties with the Arthurian Legend and does go a bit heavy on the FX especially with the inclusion of giant creatures which made me think at times I was watching something from the “Lord of the Rings”. The film does drag in parts but does rebound with a finale that seemed very video game esque, but sets up future films well. The cast is strong and there is plenty to like about the film as long as you are willing to be patient with the pacing of the film.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/10/king-arthur-legend-sword/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It’s been a while since Guy Ritchie dealt with some proper geezers doing crime and talking bollocks. Maybe there were elements of it in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. but really it’s Rock ‘n Rolla from 2008 we are talking about. Personally I hadn’t missed it. I pretty much think he took it as far as it needed to be taken, and I much prefer the Sherlock Holmes stuff, anyway.
Judging from the inexplicably high rating (currently 7.8) for this on IMDb somehow someone had missed it big time though! Or is it just easy for those in search of a nutter with a gun and a swear word or six to click 9/10? I don’t want to speculate. Suffice to say The Gentlemen is not very good. Not awful. Colin Farrell wins by having a lot of fun hamming up a bonkers creation of a man (as he does so expertly and effortlessly), and Hugh Grant comes out of it with credit too, for at least looking engaged and having some of the best lines to deliver.
As for Matthew McConnaughey, who is surely to be considered top billing, I can’t honestly remember a thing about his role in this forgettable fable some 9 weeks after seeing it. Literally, can’t recall anything he does in it to mind. Bad sign. And Charlie Hunnam doesn’t fare much better, but that’s probably because he isn’t that good or memorable in anything in the first place. There are a couple of women in this as well, but they really don’t make a difference to anything, and no one cares (sadly).
We’ve seen the whole thing before, I’m afraid, and even first time the style wasn’t for everyone and felt a bit “wrong” to a 21st century sensibility. It really is just guns and violence and swearing in ever decreasing creativity. I liked some of the costumes though.
No one involved’s best work, by a long way. A distracting way to kill a few hours if you are completely stuck for ideas, but little more than that. In a year or two no one will remember or talk about it at all. May that be a lesson to you Mr Ritchie. Leave outdated indulgences, even with your pals, in the past where they belong.
Judging from the inexplicably high rating (currently 7.8) for this on IMDb somehow someone had missed it big time though! Or is it just easy for those in search of a nutter with a gun and a swear word or six to click 9/10? I don’t want to speculate. Suffice to say The Gentlemen is not very good. Not awful. Colin Farrell wins by having a lot of fun hamming up a bonkers creation of a man (as he does so expertly and effortlessly), and Hugh Grant comes out of it with credit too, for at least looking engaged and having some of the best lines to deliver.
As for Matthew McConnaughey, who is surely to be considered top billing, I can’t honestly remember a thing about his role in this forgettable fable some 9 weeks after seeing it. Literally, can’t recall anything he does in it to mind. Bad sign. And Charlie Hunnam doesn’t fare much better, but that’s probably because he isn’t that good or memorable in anything in the first place. There are a couple of women in this as well, but they really don’t make a difference to anything, and no one cares (sadly).
We’ve seen the whole thing before, I’m afraid, and even first time the style wasn’t for everyone and felt a bit “wrong” to a 21st century sensibility. It really is just guns and violence and swearing in ever decreasing creativity. I liked some of the costumes though.
No one involved’s best work, by a long way. A distracting way to kill a few hours if you are completely stuck for ideas, but little more than that. In a year or two no one will remember or talk about it at all. May that be a lesson to you Mr Ritchie. Leave outdated indulgences, even with your pals, in the past where they belong.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020
Ritchie back on form
It's about time Guy Ritchie went back to what he does best. After the terrible Aladdin and King Arthur over the past couple of years, and the ok but not great Man from UNCLE and Sherlock Holmes films, Ritchie really needs something good. And whilst for me this didn't quite meet the high expectations set by Snatch and Lock, Stock, it's by far the best thing he's done since 2000's Snatch.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
La Bible(Louis Segond 1910) French Bible
Reference
App
This application contains French Bible(Version Louis Segond 1910). Cette application contient la...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Well multiversed.
In the latest Marvel film (notably now available with the snazzy new Marvel production logo at the start) Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”) plays the titular hero: a neurosurgeon with exceptional skills, an encyclopedic knowledge of discographies and an ego to rival Donald Trump.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated DC Universe: Rebirth #1 in Books
Nov 30, 2020
When I still had my physical comic colletion, this had been one of the last ones purchased before making the change over to digital only, selling off the physical copies. That was then, this is now. Long story short, this review is based off of a re-read as part of my "Marvel's Making Some Dumb AF Decisions of Late, Let's Go With DC Instead" Tour!
Let me just say I remember much of it, but it still hit me hard at the end of it! Just lots and lots of SUPER-feels (is that even a word/thing? Oh well, if not, it is now! lol)! Having the story told from Wally West's POV really helped to drive the overall feeling home.
Unfortunately (and this did not necessarily wreck my enjoyment), this re-reading helped to fuel my desire for DOOMSDAY CLOCK to just finish up already! Still not sure on how you can solicit something without it even being close to completely finished! Or better still how Windows 10 can be ready for release, yet every other week there's a new patch or update for it! :S
There was a lot of set-up for what was to come in the DCU, as well as some nods to things past (including WATCHMAN and CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS) and the New 52 (which, for the longest time, I hated with a passion)! You don't have to be a pro at "Where's Waldo?" or even Sherlock Holmes, you just need to be alert and taking in everything with a careful eye.
Speaking of attention to detail... Let me give a shout to all the artists involved in this undertaking: Gary Frank (I love the man's art, but his slowness as far as DOOMSDAY CLOCK is frustrating. Clearly, as this book indicates, he is better at illustrating shorter vignettes, rather than epic 12-issue maxi-series!), Ethan Van Sciver (love or hate, you gotta appreciate his art! Bee-yoo-ti-ful!), Phil Jimenez (always love me some Jimenez pencilling!), and Ivan Reis (never a disappointment). And as important as the artists were, it would be unfair of me not to also acknowledge the inkers and colorists on this: Brad Anderson, Jason Wright, and Joe Prado. So, a big ol' panda-rific round of applause and adulation for the art teams for all their hard work! You guys are all aces!
Over the years, DC has published a more than fair amount of solid events and single issues. Is this the best book they've ever published? I wouldn't go that far, but it a damned good one! And at the end of the day, that's what it really comes down to: whether it's a good or a bad one, hence the name of this pretty cool less-FB-ish social media site! :)
Let me just say I remember much of it, but it still hit me hard at the end of it! Just lots and lots of SUPER-feels (is that even a word/thing? Oh well, if not, it is now! lol)! Having the story told from Wally West's POV really helped to drive the overall feeling home.
Unfortunately (and this did not necessarily wreck my enjoyment), this re-reading helped to fuel my desire for DOOMSDAY CLOCK to just finish up already! Still not sure on how you can solicit something without it even being close to completely finished! Or better still how Windows 10 can be ready for release, yet every other week there's a new patch or update for it! :S
There was a lot of set-up for what was to come in the DCU, as well as some nods to things past (including WATCHMAN and CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS) and the New 52 (which, for the longest time, I hated with a passion)! You don't have to be a pro at "Where's Waldo?" or even Sherlock Holmes, you just need to be alert and taking in everything with a careful eye.
Speaking of attention to detail... Let me give a shout to all the artists involved in this undertaking: Gary Frank (I love the man's art, but his slowness as far as DOOMSDAY CLOCK is frustrating. Clearly, as this book indicates, he is better at illustrating shorter vignettes, rather than epic 12-issue maxi-series!), Ethan Van Sciver (love or hate, you gotta appreciate his art! Bee-yoo-ti-ful!), Phil Jimenez (always love me some Jimenez pencilling!), and Ivan Reis (never a disappointment). And as important as the artists were, it would be unfair of me not to also acknowledge the inkers and colorists on this: Brad Anderson, Jason Wright, and Joe Prado. So, a big ol' panda-rific round of applause and adulation for the art teams for all their hard work! You guys are all aces!
Over the years, DC has published a more than fair amount of solid events and single issues. Is this the best book they've ever published? I wouldn't go that far, but it a damned good one! And at the end of the day, that's what it really comes down to: whether it's a good or a bad one, hence the name of this pretty cool less-FB-ish social media site! :)
Kyera (8 KP) rated Stalking Jack the Ripper in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Stalking Jack the Ripper is a fascinating, fictional take on the reign of terror that gripped London in the late 1800's. The story is told through the eyes of a teen girl, Audrey Rose, who is doing her best to study under her uncle's tutelage - as a forensic scientist. She is drawn into the murders, even though her family and society does not agree with her inclusion in the affair as it is not right for ladies to be interested in such things.
The author did a brilliant job weaving what facts we know historically about Jack the Ripper into her carefully crafted narrative. The dialogue is a bit clunky at times and the pacing could have been better, but overall I enjoyed this book. Some people felt that the perpetrator was obvious from the first moment they stepped on the scene, but I didn't feel that way. It seemed like the suspense and horror built over the course of the book until you finally realize who the killer is in the final moments before its reveal.
The characters were both a high and low point in the book. I enjoyed the fact that the main character was meant to be a more progressive person than women in her time generally, but sometimes her inner dialogues were strange moments of her thinking utterly ridiculous thoughts and then immediately dismissing them like oh no that cannot be. She desires to be both pretty and fierce and does not understand why society feels that she cannot be both. Audrey Rose also has a propensity for charging into dangerous situations with no planning, when a murderer is stalking the streets looking for women to cut apart. It's difficult to explain how all of those things combined to affect her portrayal, but overall it made her seem less strong, much more insecure, and significantly less grounded than I feel the author was hoping to portray her.
Thomas Cresswell, on the other hand, is the witty British boy that you can help but love when he enters a scene. He made brilliant deductions and didn't miss a moment attempting to seduce Miss Audrey Rose. The two of them together were such a fun team, even if Audrey Rose's inner dialogue was frustratingly superficial. Oh, I hate this boy, oh, I can't help but want to kiss him, he's terrible, he's wonderful. Please, Audrey Rose, control your emotions and be the strong heroine we deserve in this book. Together, they were very reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.
The author creates a vivid landscape upon which this gruesome tableau takes place. That being said, I would definitely caution some readers from this book as the violence is quite explicitly described. It can definitely be too much for some younger readers or people who are squeamish. If you feel like you're okay with the gory details and enjoy forensic science, I believe you will enjoy this book.
The author did a brilliant job weaving what facts we know historically about Jack the Ripper into her carefully crafted narrative. The dialogue is a bit clunky at times and the pacing could have been better, but overall I enjoyed this book. Some people felt that the perpetrator was obvious from the first moment they stepped on the scene, but I didn't feel that way. It seemed like the suspense and horror built over the course of the book until you finally realize who the killer is in the final moments before its reveal.
The characters were both a high and low point in the book. I enjoyed the fact that the main character was meant to be a more progressive person than women in her time generally, but sometimes her inner dialogues were strange moments of her thinking utterly ridiculous thoughts and then immediately dismissing them like oh no that cannot be. She desires to be both pretty and fierce and does not understand why society feels that she cannot be both. Audrey Rose also has a propensity for charging into dangerous situations with no planning, when a murderer is stalking the streets looking for women to cut apart. It's difficult to explain how all of those things combined to affect her portrayal, but overall it made her seem less strong, much more insecure, and significantly less grounded than I feel the author was hoping to portray her.
Thomas Cresswell, on the other hand, is the witty British boy that you can help but love when he enters a scene. He made brilliant deductions and didn't miss a moment attempting to seduce Miss Audrey Rose. The two of them together were such a fun team, even if Audrey Rose's inner dialogue was frustratingly superficial. Oh, I hate this boy, oh, I can't help but want to kiss him, he's terrible, he's wonderful. Please, Audrey Rose, control your emotions and be the strong heroine we deserve in this book. Together, they were very reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.
The author creates a vivid landscape upon which this gruesome tableau takes place. That being said, I would definitely caution some readers from this book as the violence is quite explicitly described. It can definitely be too much for some younger readers or people who are squeamish. If you feel like you're okay with the gory details and enjoy forensic science, I believe you will enjoy this book.
La Biblia Reina Valera (Spanish Bible)
Book
App
If you like our reader LoudReader, please go to APP store to search 'Loudreader' for many more great...
La Biblia Sagradas Escrituras (Spanish Bible)
Book
App
If you like our reader LoudReader, please go to APP store to search 'Loudreader' for many more great...