Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aladdin (1992) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aladdin starts as we see the evil Jafar looking for a lamp but hi plans are put on hold when he needs to find a diamond in the rough. We move onto meet street thieve Aladdin who steals to survive and help others who are less fortunate. We also meet Princess Jasmin who needs to be married off by her Sultan father by her next birthday but wants to fall in love before marrying someone.
After Jasmine runs away she meets Aladdin who gets placed into helping Jafar retrieve the Lamp from the Cave of Wonders. Once Aladdin finds the lamp he awakens the Genie who grants him three wishes that could change his life forever.
Aladdin is one of the most popular Disney movies all time and I can see why. We have the unlikely hero that is good at heart but never given the chance to be the success he could be, we have a strong female lead and a villain tired of being in the shadows wanting power. Mixing all of these together we get a full story that does everything you need in a film taking the Disney Princess idea to a new world. This will always be considered a true classic that will forever be loved.
Character Review
Aladdin: Aladdin is the small town street thieve that does what he needs to, to survive. When he meets Jasmine he instantly falls in love but finds him the target of Jafar to steal a magic lamp. The lamp gives him three wishes that he uses to make himself a Prince to marry Jasmine but it isn’t long before his true self is discovered and he can become a hero by himself. Aladdin is a great character that shows just because he does criminal activities he is doing them for the right reason and is selfless at heart.
Genie: Genie comes from the lamp giving Aladdin three wishes having been trapped for years. He has rules but must grant wishes that don’t break these rules to his master. He loves working for Aladdin but ends up being forced into working for Jafar. Genie is one of Robin William best performance as the pure energy behind this film that you want to see every single scene he is in.
Jasmine: Jasmine is the princess that is being forced into marrying a prince but she keeps rejecting any that come her way. She escapes the kingdom and falls in love with Aladdin who is everything she shouldn’t be marrying. Jasmine is a strong princess which is unlike most of Disney’s for the time she wants love and will make sure she finds it.
Jafar: Jafar is the Sultan’s most trusted advisor but he has plans to become the Sultan himself and will look into to any means to make this happen including finding the lamp to wish for the power. Jafar is one of your typical villains you see in a Disney film that will always be one to hate.
Support Characters: Aladdin has good supporting comedy character that will make you laugh through the film.
Director Review: Ron Clements, John Musker – The pair give us one of the most memorable and stand out Disney films of all time.
Adventure: Aladdin takes us on an adventure as Aladdin goes from street thieve to worthy hand in marriage for Jasmine.
Animation: Aladdin had the brilliant animation you have come to know from Disney.
Comedy: Aladdin has great use of comedy with most coming from Robin Williams.
Family: Aladdin is one the whole family could enjoy with jokes for the whole family to understand.
Fantasy: Aladdin puts us in the middle of a fantasy world that is filled with genies that can grant wishes.
Romance: Aladdin has a romantic story that follows a princess who wants to fall in love rather than be forced into marriage.
Settings: Aladdin puts us into a world that shows the type of world that Aladdin is living in.
Suggestion: Aladdin is one that I think everyone should have watched at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Whole New World.
Worst Part: Not one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears:
Chances of Sequel: Has one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 2 Oscars
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Tagline: A diamond in the rough.
Trivia: This film became the 14th (and the first animated movie) to gross more than $200,000,000.
Overall: One of the BEST Disney films of all time.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/07/06/aladdin-1992/
After Jasmine runs away she meets Aladdin who gets placed into helping Jafar retrieve the Lamp from the Cave of Wonders. Once Aladdin finds the lamp he awakens the Genie who grants him three wishes that could change his life forever.
Aladdin is one of the most popular Disney movies all time and I can see why. We have the unlikely hero that is good at heart but never given the chance to be the success he could be, we have a strong female lead and a villain tired of being in the shadows wanting power. Mixing all of these together we get a full story that does everything you need in a film taking the Disney Princess idea to a new world. This will always be considered a true classic that will forever be loved.
Character Review
Aladdin: Aladdin is the small town street thieve that does what he needs to, to survive. When he meets Jasmine he instantly falls in love but finds him the target of Jafar to steal a magic lamp. The lamp gives him three wishes that he uses to make himself a Prince to marry Jasmine but it isn’t long before his true self is discovered and he can become a hero by himself. Aladdin is a great character that shows just because he does criminal activities he is doing them for the right reason and is selfless at heart.
Genie: Genie comes from the lamp giving Aladdin three wishes having been trapped for years. He has rules but must grant wishes that don’t break these rules to his master. He loves working for Aladdin but ends up being forced into working for Jafar. Genie is one of Robin William best performance as the pure energy behind this film that you want to see every single scene he is in.
Jasmine: Jasmine is the princess that is being forced into marrying a prince but she keeps rejecting any that come her way. She escapes the kingdom and falls in love with Aladdin who is everything she shouldn’t be marrying. Jasmine is a strong princess which is unlike most of Disney’s for the time she wants love and will make sure she finds it.
Jafar: Jafar is the Sultan’s most trusted advisor but he has plans to become the Sultan himself and will look into to any means to make this happen including finding the lamp to wish for the power. Jafar is one of your typical villains you see in a Disney film that will always be one to hate.
Support Characters: Aladdin has good supporting comedy character that will make you laugh through the film.
Director Review: Ron Clements, John Musker – The pair give us one of the most memorable and stand out Disney films of all time.
Adventure: Aladdin takes us on an adventure as Aladdin goes from street thieve to worthy hand in marriage for Jasmine.
Animation: Aladdin had the brilliant animation you have come to know from Disney.
Comedy: Aladdin has great use of comedy with most coming from Robin Williams.
Family: Aladdin is one the whole family could enjoy with jokes for the whole family to understand.
Fantasy: Aladdin puts us in the middle of a fantasy world that is filled with genies that can grant wishes.
Romance: Aladdin has a romantic story that follows a princess who wants to fall in love rather than be forced into marriage.
Settings: Aladdin puts us into a world that shows the type of world that Aladdin is living in.
Suggestion: Aladdin is one that I think everyone should have watched at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Whole New World.
Worst Part: Not one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears:
Chances of Sequel: Has one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 2 Oscars
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Tagline: A diamond in the rough.
Trivia: This film became the 14th (and the first animated movie) to gross more than $200,000,000.
Overall: One of the BEST Disney films of all time.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/07/06/aladdin-1992/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Power-house female lead roles, times 3. (1 more)
John Lithgow (who should have got a supporting actor nom)
Sleazy old Fox.
This is a curious one. I wonder whether the audience reaction to this one will polarize along gender lines as it did for my wife and I? For I thought this one was "good, but nothing special"... but the illustrious Mrs Movie Man thought it was excellent and would be "memorable".
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Piece Of The World in Books
May 30, 2018
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, A Piece of the World is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: Christina’s World (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting Christina’s World, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
A Piece of the World is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, A Piece of the World is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, A Piece of the World is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: Christina’s World (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting Christina’s World, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
A Piece of the World is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, A Piece of the World is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Piece Of The World in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, <i>A Piece of the World</i> is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: <i>Christina’s World</i> (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be <i>Charcot-Marie-Tooth</i> disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting <i>Christina’s World</i>, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
<i>A Piece of the World</i> is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, </i>A Piece of the World</i> is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
<imgsrc="https://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIsIjE2NTQ1NyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg?sha=33c151dba7f8de4c"width="100"height="40"alt="ChristinasWorld"/>;
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, <i>A Piece of the World</i> is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: <i>Christina’s World</i> (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be <i>Charcot-Marie-Tooth</i> disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting <i>Christina’s World</i>, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
<i>A Piece of the World</i> is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, </i>A Piece of the World</i> is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
<imgsrc="https://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIsIjE2NTQ1NyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg?sha=33c151dba7f8de4c"width="100"height="40"alt="ChristinasWorld"/>;
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jan 23, 2020
In this day and age, where Star Wars is beloved by so many, and more recently met with sighs and trepidation by just as many, it's a franchise that easily faces scrutiny.
We can look at both the prequel and sequel trilogies to plainly see that it doesn't take much to piss off Star Wars fans in one way or another.
The announcement of Rogue One was met with said scrutiny, some saying it wasn't needed, some feeling fatigued by the sheer amount of Star Wars being thrown at us, sentiments that I can understand.
But I truly believe that Rogue One was a surprising win, and I left the cinema feeling that it belonged up there with the top tier SW films, and my opinion hasn't budged on repeat viewings.
The story revolves around a rag tag group of mercenaries, smugglers, and outcasts, and how they managed to secure the Death Star plans that set off the events of A New Hope back in 1977.
The cast of heroes aren't fleshed out a huge deal, but were given enough backstory to understand them adequately and back their campaign against the Empire.
Just like TFA, it's great to have another female lead in the SW universe. Felicity Jones is likable enough as Jyn Erso, even if her character is a little on the vanilla side.
The duo of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus (Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) work great next to one another, and provide a lot of the films humour and emotional impact.
The droid K2-SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is also a surprising highlight, his dry sense of humour works fantastically with the more serious tone of the movie.
We also have Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) which is the only character from the main group I struggled to like. He's written like a poor man's Han Solo, and I just didn't care about him at all, an aspect that can hopefully be rectified in the upcoming Disney+ series.
We also have Forest Whitaker as Saw Gerrera - a concrete connection to Star Wars: Rebels no less!, Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen, and Ben Mendelsohn as this films villain, Orson Krennic.
It's a really strong cast if mostly enjoyable characters that earn their place in the SW pantheon.
In terms of cinematography, Star Wars has arguably never looked so good. Gorgeous and colourful locations like Scarif contrast against the classic Whit and greys of the original Empire design beautifully. All of the CG effects are more or less perfect, (with a huge exception that I'll get to in a second) and the action set pieces are thrilling. The whole final act is spectacular, and then just when it's seems like it's all over, we get THAT ending sequence - Gareth Edwards knows just the right amount of nostalgia to ensure the audience laps it up, and it's one of the best minutes of any Star Wars film ever.
The exception I mentioned above is of course going to be the subject of bringing back real actors from the dead. The inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin makes sense in this particular narrative, but it does feel a bit odd seeing Peter Cushing, who died over 20 years ago, back on screen. Another cameo late on that includes a younger version of a legendary Star Wars character looks really off as well.
Overall though, these are just nit picks at an otherwise terrific sci-fi adventure.
Rogue One is bonafide great entry into the Star Wars canon, and its my personal favourite of the Disney era so far. Top stuff.
We can look at both the prequel and sequel trilogies to plainly see that it doesn't take much to piss off Star Wars fans in one way or another.
The announcement of Rogue One was met with said scrutiny, some saying it wasn't needed, some feeling fatigued by the sheer amount of Star Wars being thrown at us, sentiments that I can understand.
But I truly believe that Rogue One was a surprising win, and I left the cinema feeling that it belonged up there with the top tier SW films, and my opinion hasn't budged on repeat viewings.
The story revolves around a rag tag group of mercenaries, smugglers, and outcasts, and how they managed to secure the Death Star plans that set off the events of A New Hope back in 1977.
The cast of heroes aren't fleshed out a huge deal, but were given enough backstory to understand them adequately and back their campaign against the Empire.
Just like TFA, it's great to have another female lead in the SW universe. Felicity Jones is likable enough as Jyn Erso, even if her character is a little on the vanilla side.
The duo of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus (Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) work great next to one another, and provide a lot of the films humour and emotional impact.
The droid K2-SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is also a surprising highlight, his dry sense of humour works fantastically with the more serious tone of the movie.
We also have Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) which is the only character from the main group I struggled to like. He's written like a poor man's Han Solo, and I just didn't care about him at all, an aspect that can hopefully be rectified in the upcoming Disney+ series.
We also have Forest Whitaker as Saw Gerrera - a concrete connection to Star Wars: Rebels no less!, Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen, and Ben Mendelsohn as this films villain, Orson Krennic.
It's a really strong cast if mostly enjoyable characters that earn their place in the SW pantheon.
In terms of cinematography, Star Wars has arguably never looked so good. Gorgeous and colourful locations like Scarif contrast against the classic Whit and greys of the original Empire design beautifully. All of the CG effects are more or less perfect, (with a huge exception that I'll get to in a second) and the action set pieces are thrilling. The whole final act is spectacular, and then just when it's seems like it's all over, we get THAT ending sequence - Gareth Edwards knows just the right amount of nostalgia to ensure the audience laps it up, and it's one of the best minutes of any Star Wars film ever.
The exception I mentioned above is of course going to be the subject of bringing back real actors from the dead. The inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin makes sense in this particular narrative, but it does feel a bit odd seeing Peter Cushing, who died over 20 years ago, back on screen. Another cameo late on that includes a younger version of a legendary Star Wars character looks really off as well.
Overall though, these are just nit picks at an otherwise terrific sci-fi adventure.
Rogue One is bonafide great entry into the Star Wars canon, and its my personal favourite of the Disney era so far. Top stuff.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Something's Alive on the Titanic in Books
May 16, 2018
Something's Alive on the Titanic has a bit of a split story line, with one part of the book taking place in 1975, and the other part taking place in 1995. Written by the late Robert Serling, who is, in fact, Rod Serling's older brother, Something's Alive on the Titanic plays off of the idea that Dr. Robert Ballard was not the first one to discover the final resting place of the Titanic. Instead, a team led by John Hawke, at the behest of code-breaker Derek Montague, departs on an expedition to retrieve treasure from the Titanic's watery grave after Montague discovers that a shipment from a smuggling ring under the guise of a salvage company by the name of Sovereign Metals.
A true product of its time, and remaining faithful to the time-period in which the story is set, one of the few things of note to make in regards to its characters is the absolute lack of a strong female presence. The two women that are present, especially Chaney in the 1975 portion of the book, are Mary Sue-esque and, without a doubt, sexualized. Another note to be made comes in the form of the male characters: they are portrayed as stereotypical, stubborn men that, despite being superstitious, are also skeptics. This manner of male character is more prominent in the second part of the book than the first.
The plot, on the other hand, was pretty stellar. In 1975, the expedition lacks the proper equipment to dive down into the depths of the Atlantic and explore the ship for extended periods of time. They make the most of what they do have, however. Intent on claiming the lost treasure, most of John Hawke's crew show little regard for the fact that they are desecrating a grave: greed is, after all, the heart of all evil. While the Atlantic Ocean treats the crew well, the Titanic is anything but forgiving: the decrepit ship plays host to more than the relics of the souls that once stood upon its deck. Whatever that thing is, it doesn't play nicely. In 1995, the US Navy gathers a crew to find out what exactly happened in 1975, and to complete the earlier expedition's salvage mission.
Given the presence of a female in a heavily male dominated field, it goes without saying that there's a bit of teasing and a bit of romance. That subplot is fairly minor and serves mostly to remind readers of a certain character's penchant for being a total asshole and little more. There is also sex, briefly, but I'll leave that to someone else.
Serling's knowledge of the Titanic is actually pretty accurate, down to the fact that the fourth funnel on the ship was a fake, there was a shortage of lifeboats, and most of the lifeboats were dropped before they were filled.
It isn't very often that a book really draws me in, but that could be attributed to the fact that I no longer read as I used to. Serling's prose kept me on the edge of my seat and at times, it even raised my heart rate a little. Rather than paint us an entire picture of the supernatural phenomena that takes place, he begins with little bits and pieces, crumbs if you will, until finally, you begin to question the sanity of the characters involved, whilst simultaneously hoping for the best.
A true product of its time, and remaining faithful to the time-period in which the story is set, one of the few things of note to make in regards to its characters is the absolute lack of a strong female presence. The two women that are present, especially Chaney in the 1975 portion of the book, are Mary Sue-esque and, without a doubt, sexualized. Another note to be made comes in the form of the male characters: they are portrayed as stereotypical, stubborn men that, despite being superstitious, are also skeptics. This manner of male character is more prominent in the second part of the book than the first.
The plot, on the other hand, was pretty stellar. In 1975, the expedition lacks the proper equipment to dive down into the depths of the Atlantic and explore the ship for extended periods of time. They make the most of what they do have, however. Intent on claiming the lost treasure, most of John Hawke's crew show little regard for the fact that they are desecrating a grave: greed is, after all, the heart of all evil. While the Atlantic Ocean treats the crew well, the Titanic is anything but forgiving: the decrepit ship plays host to more than the relics of the souls that once stood upon its deck. Whatever that thing is, it doesn't play nicely. In 1995, the US Navy gathers a crew to find out what exactly happened in 1975, and to complete the earlier expedition's salvage mission.
Given the presence of a female in a heavily male dominated field, it goes without saying that there's a bit of teasing and a bit of romance. That subplot is fairly minor and serves mostly to remind readers of a certain character's penchant for being a total asshole and little more. There is also sex, briefly, but I'll leave that to someone else.
Serling's knowledge of the Titanic is actually pretty accurate, down to the fact that the fourth funnel on the ship was a fake, there was a shortage of lifeboats, and most of the lifeboats were dropped before they were filled.
It isn't very often that a book really draws me in, but that could be attributed to the fact that I no longer read as I used to. Serling's prose kept me on the edge of my seat and at times, it even raised my heart rate a little. Rather than paint us an entire picture of the supernatural phenomena that takes place, he begins with little bits and pieces, crumbs if you will, until finally, you begin to question the sanity of the characters involved, whilst simultaneously hoping for the best.
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated Frankenstein in Books
Aug 9, 2019
The plot and major themes. (1 more)
Further work it inspired.
Readable, but disjointed and repetitive in parts.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fundamentally, the problem with this book is the narrator, Victor. He is thoroughly detestable. A selfish, cowardly, irresponsible, excuse ridden, narcissistic d****e-bag of the highest order. And unfortunately, it is Victor Frankenstein’s POV that we are forced into for the majority of the novel.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Respect (2021) in Movies
Oct 14, 2021
Re, re, re, re, ‘spect… Just a little bit.
What with holidays and Bond, it’s taken me a few weeks to get to see this Aretha Franklin biopic. But I finally caught it this week.
Plot Summary:
‘Re’ is a 10-year old growing up in relative middle-class affluence in Birmingham, Alabama with her high-profile preacher father C.L. Franklin (Forest Whitaker). She is blessed with a wonderful singing voice. We follow her career, as Aretha Franklin (Jennifer Hudson), through her struggles with controlling men and alcohol. This is against the backdrop of supporting the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King (Gilbert Glenn Brown).
“Respect” Review: Positives:
Jennifer Hudson gives a tremendous performance as Franklin, delivering both the vocals and the acting admirably. (Apparently, the lady herself, before she died in August 2018, named Hudson as the best person to play her.)
Coming out of this movie, you have to admire Aretha Franklin’s legacy. Although there are moments when her ‘demons’ got the better of her (and the movie is unafraid to paint her in a negative light for these) she led a tumultuous life and yet was still a strong force for both feminism and equality. I think the movie highlights that admirably. “Have you lost your mind?” her father (Forest Whitaker) asks. “Maybe…. maybe I’ve found it.” she replies.
I loved the clip during the end titles (at a Carole King concert and in front of the Obamas) of Franklin well into her 70’s belting out “Natural Woman”. Classy stuff.
Negatives:
It’s long. Very long. Approaching Bond long.
There’s a curious ‘cookie-cutter-ness’ to these biopics of classic female singers (controlling and abusive men; alcohol/drug abuse; prejudice through sex/race; etc). (Would they even have emanated the same level of soul without all the grief? Perhaps not.) The similarities lead you to naturally compare this movie with “The US vs Billie Holiday“. The Billie Holiday story felt like it had a lot more grit and angst in it, making it, for me at least, more memorable. The script for “Respect” – although still rather episodic – flows better. Whilst still great, Hudson’s performance (an Oscar nomination perhaps?) doesn’t come close to the Oscar-nominated stellar job done by Andra Day.
I didn’t like how the script introduced us to its characters. For example, Ted White (Marlon Wayans) is introduced at a church barbeque. He’s painted as a disreputable character, but why? And you have no idea if he is supposed to be a famous singer, a songwriter, a promoter, or a producer (as in fact he is). As another example, Kelvin Hair plays Sam Cooke in the movie, but – unless I missed it – this doesn’t seem to be highlighted in the script.
Summary Thoughts on “Respect”
“Respect” is the feature debut for female director Liesl Tommy. And it’s certainly an ambitious target for a first-timer to shoot at, so ‘Respect’ for that! And it comes across as a solid and enjoyable biopic, not least to remind yourself of some of the classic tunes that Aretha Franklin belted out. At 145 minutes though, it takes its time telling its story, and I think a tighter, shorter film would have worked better.
Did I enjoy it though? Yes, I did. But it’s worth pointing out that the illustrious Mrs Movie Man – who normally begrudges every minute over 90 minutes in a movie – really loved this one.
Plot Summary:
‘Re’ is a 10-year old growing up in relative middle-class affluence in Birmingham, Alabama with her high-profile preacher father C.L. Franklin (Forest Whitaker). She is blessed with a wonderful singing voice. We follow her career, as Aretha Franklin (Jennifer Hudson), through her struggles with controlling men and alcohol. This is against the backdrop of supporting the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King (Gilbert Glenn Brown).
“Respect” Review: Positives:
Jennifer Hudson gives a tremendous performance as Franklin, delivering both the vocals and the acting admirably. (Apparently, the lady herself, before she died in August 2018, named Hudson as the best person to play her.)
Coming out of this movie, you have to admire Aretha Franklin’s legacy. Although there are moments when her ‘demons’ got the better of her (and the movie is unafraid to paint her in a negative light for these) she led a tumultuous life and yet was still a strong force for both feminism and equality. I think the movie highlights that admirably. “Have you lost your mind?” her father (Forest Whitaker) asks. “Maybe…. maybe I’ve found it.” she replies.
I loved the clip during the end titles (at a Carole King concert and in front of the Obamas) of Franklin well into her 70’s belting out “Natural Woman”. Classy stuff.
Negatives:
It’s long. Very long. Approaching Bond long.
There’s a curious ‘cookie-cutter-ness’ to these biopics of classic female singers (controlling and abusive men; alcohol/drug abuse; prejudice through sex/race; etc). (Would they even have emanated the same level of soul without all the grief? Perhaps not.) The similarities lead you to naturally compare this movie with “The US vs Billie Holiday“. The Billie Holiday story felt like it had a lot more grit and angst in it, making it, for me at least, more memorable. The script for “Respect” – although still rather episodic – flows better. Whilst still great, Hudson’s performance (an Oscar nomination perhaps?) doesn’t come close to the Oscar-nominated stellar job done by Andra Day.
I didn’t like how the script introduced us to its characters. For example, Ted White (Marlon Wayans) is introduced at a church barbeque. He’s painted as a disreputable character, but why? And you have no idea if he is supposed to be a famous singer, a songwriter, a promoter, or a producer (as in fact he is). As another example, Kelvin Hair plays Sam Cooke in the movie, but – unless I missed it – this doesn’t seem to be highlighted in the script.
Summary Thoughts on “Respect”
“Respect” is the feature debut for female director Liesl Tommy. And it’s certainly an ambitious target for a first-timer to shoot at, so ‘Respect’ for that! And it comes across as a solid and enjoyable biopic, not least to remind yourself of some of the classic tunes that Aretha Franklin belted out. At 145 minutes though, it takes its time telling its story, and I think a tighter, shorter film would have worked better.
Did I enjoy it though? Yes, I did. But it’s worth pointing out that the illustrious Mrs Movie Man – who normally begrudges every minute over 90 minutes in a movie – really loved this one.
It Could Have Been Fantastic
I feel very conflicted about this YA novel so please bear with me as I try to explain why!
The positives first. The plot is very interesting and well thought out. Although not entirely original it isn't your run of the mill haunted house story either.
The main characters are well rounded and sympathetic. They each have a strong voice and are relatable. The author is very good at creating tension and does not shy away from scary/unsettling images.
The narration and pace of the story feels perfect for a young adult book - no slow enough to be condescending but with simple sentence structures and short chapters that will help to encourage reluctant or not so confident readers to stick with it. I would certainly use this book in my teaching role for my higher level students - adults that struggle with literacy and/or have slight learning difficulties.
The messages that this story carries are important ones. The main message is especially vital for both male and female readers.
Now for the negative's. There is rather a lot of repetition in the story. Not just parts of the back story but actual sentences in a couple of instances. This did grow to be tiresome and, had I read this aged fourteen I would have felt the same way. Unfortunately this did tend to slow the story down at times. Reading the exact same joke from four chapters ago isn't great.
The book centres on one character and what happened to her. I felt that the sudden shift in her personality was rushed. More time should have been taken to really understand her and what happened to her.
The fact that she is automatically disbelieved is not great. It's a VERY sensitive subject and to have the rest of the characters do that could easily lodge the idea, in some young people's heads, that they would also be treated with scepticism.
A few times throughout the story there were errors. Mostly continuation errors but a couple of glaring mistakes. For example, two of the characters are playing a video game. Fallout 4. In the story one of the characters 'gets the guy' of the other. Fallout 4 is not a multiplayer game, a friend cannot 'get' you in any way.
Yes, a small thing but hugely annoying when you know that it is wrong. As Fallout 4 is such a popular game this will not go unnoticed by many young adults!
The ending did feel rather rushed. An extra chapter or two to explain what happened and to explore the feelings of the characters properly would have been nice.
So yes, this is an extremely mixed review. Most of the negative's are small and I would have given another star if not for the slightly mixed message surrounding the title character - I was disappointed with that.
The author is obviously very talented and writes perfectly for the YA market. Just a little more time and care would have made it awesome.
The positives first. The plot is very interesting and well thought out. Although not entirely original it isn't your run of the mill haunted house story either.
The main characters are well rounded and sympathetic. They each have a strong voice and are relatable. The author is very good at creating tension and does not shy away from scary/unsettling images.
The narration and pace of the story feels perfect for a young adult book - no slow enough to be condescending but with simple sentence structures and short chapters that will help to encourage reluctant or not so confident readers to stick with it. I would certainly use this book in my teaching role for my higher level students - adults that struggle with literacy and/or have slight learning difficulties.
The messages that this story carries are important ones. The main message is especially vital for both male and female readers.
Now for the negative's. There is rather a lot of repetition in the story. Not just parts of the back story but actual sentences in a couple of instances. This did grow to be tiresome and, had I read this aged fourteen I would have felt the same way. Unfortunately this did tend to slow the story down at times. Reading the exact same joke from four chapters ago isn't great.
The book centres on one character and what happened to her. I felt that the sudden shift in her personality was rushed. More time should have been taken to really understand her and what happened to her.
The fact that she is automatically disbelieved is not great. It's a VERY sensitive subject and to have the rest of the characters do that could easily lodge the idea, in some young people's heads, that they would also be treated with scepticism.
A few times throughout the story there were errors. Mostly continuation errors but a couple of glaring mistakes. For example, two of the characters are playing a video game. Fallout 4. In the story one of the characters 'gets the guy' of the other. Fallout 4 is not a multiplayer game, a friend cannot 'get' you in any way.
Yes, a small thing but hugely annoying when you know that it is wrong. As Fallout 4 is such a popular game this will not go unnoticed by many young adults!
The ending did feel rather rushed. An extra chapter or two to explain what happened and to explore the feelings of the characters properly would have been nice.
So yes, this is an extremely mixed review. Most of the negative's are small and I would have given another star if not for the slightly mixed message surrounding the title character - I was disappointed with that.
The author is obviously very talented and writes perfectly for the YA market. Just a little more time and care would have made it awesome.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated A Means to an End in Books
Sep 13, 2019
Cold Case Detective Lauren Riley is back on the job after being stabbed in the line of duty. She and her partner, Shane Reese, find themselves investigating a body dumped in the woods in the exact same site as a victim from one of Lauren's previous cases. She quickly recognizes the tie to David Spencer, a clever kid whom Lauren helped get off on a murder charge while she was working as a Private Investigator. Once he was acquitted, Lauren realized he was a cold-blooded psychopath, and she's been haunted by it (and him) ever since. Lauren is put on a Task Force investigating the killing--and the unsolved murders of two cops--but she quickly realizes she may be the only one who can stop David, for once and for all.
I really like the character of Lauren Riley--she's a tough yet vulnerable cop who knows her stuff, and I've been following her since the beginning of this series. This book tied up some things, but left others hanging, and I have to admit, I hope there is a book four out there? I also have to say, to prove my devotion to Lauren, my ARC copy had issues with the "f"s in the book (e.g. Sheriff = Sheri; office = offce; files = les, etc.) and none of the text messages were in there, and I still read it, because I needed to know what was happening to Lauren. A final copy will be fine--just pointing out how much I care about these characters!
We have a small cast here, but do get some new blood, mainly in the form of the task force gents. Two, of course, suspect Lauren for the cop killings that happened in the second novel, but one, Jack Nolan, seems to be a good guy. Poor Lauren, she can't catch a break. I would mention that this book will make more sense if you've read the first two. Redmond explains things, but the backstory is easier to comprehend (and those first two books are good). Still, don't let that scare you away from this one.
These cases are personal for Lauren, and I found some of this book stressful, as I care about her and Reese, and I was worried about them both! If you're less invested, you may not be as concerned. No matter what, it's an interesting book--we think we know our suspect (David), but we're never quite sure, and there's a lot of angst and intrigue in trying to track him down. I always enjoy how the city of Buffalo is almost another character in these books, and it's very clear that Redmond knows her police procedures.
"She'd been waging a one-person war against him, and she was losing. She had to take this further before anyone else got hurt."
Overall, I definitely recommend this one, especially if you've read the earlier books, enjoy a good police procedural, or are on the hunt for a strong female protagonist. Redmond's stories are always interesting and sure to suck you in. 4 stars.
I really like the character of Lauren Riley--she's a tough yet vulnerable cop who knows her stuff, and I've been following her since the beginning of this series. This book tied up some things, but left others hanging, and I have to admit, I hope there is a book four out there? I also have to say, to prove my devotion to Lauren, my ARC copy had issues with the "f"s in the book (e.g. Sheriff = Sheri; office = offce; files = les, etc.) and none of the text messages were in there, and I still read it, because I needed to know what was happening to Lauren. A final copy will be fine--just pointing out how much I care about these characters!
We have a small cast here, but do get some new blood, mainly in the form of the task force gents. Two, of course, suspect Lauren for the cop killings that happened in the second novel, but one, Jack Nolan, seems to be a good guy. Poor Lauren, she can't catch a break. I would mention that this book will make more sense if you've read the first two. Redmond explains things, but the backstory is easier to comprehend (and those first two books are good). Still, don't let that scare you away from this one.
These cases are personal for Lauren, and I found some of this book stressful, as I care about her and Reese, and I was worried about them both! If you're less invested, you may not be as concerned. No matter what, it's an interesting book--we think we know our suspect (David), but we're never quite sure, and there's a lot of angst and intrigue in trying to track him down. I always enjoy how the city of Buffalo is almost another character in these books, and it's very clear that Redmond knows her police procedures.
"She'd been waging a one-person war against him, and she was losing. She had to take this further before anyone else got hurt."
Overall, I definitely recommend this one, especially if you've read the earlier books, enjoy a good police procedural, or are on the hunt for a strong female protagonist. Redmond's stories are always interesting and sure to suck you in. 4 stars.