Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022 (Updated Feb 19, 2022)
Wasted backstories that go nowhere. (3 more)
Rehashes and recreates the original film while not offering much of its own material.
New characters fall flat.
Feels like a half-cocked attempt at a new "film. "
Tearing the Face Off of a Horror Franchise
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a direct sequel to the original 1974 film nearly 50 years later. Directed by David Blue Garcia with a screenplay by Chris Thomas Devlin and a story by Fede Alvarez (co-writer and director of the 2013 Evil Dead remake) and Rodo Sayagues (Don’t Breathe 1 & 2), Texas Chainsaw Massacre follows a group of young 20-somethings as they venture from Austin to Harlow, TX; a seven hour drive.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated Beautiful Creatures (Caster Chronicles, #1) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
I was made aware of this book when, at the cinema to see Les Miserables, I saw the trailer for the film adaptation. Apart from loving the song, which immediately went on my iPod when I got home (Seven Devils – Florence + the Machine), what I saw caught my attention enough to jot down the name and read the book.
Beautiful Creatures is set in the fictional town of Gatlin, South Carolina. Ethan Wate, from whose perspective the book is written, describes his town’s residents as either “stupid or stuck”, and can’t wait to leave, bored with the banality of his life. Fairly soon into the book, the reader is pulled into his dream, where we meet a girl smelling of lemons and rosemary, in need of help. A girl who, although he hasn’t yet met her, Ethan can’t live without.
The girl is Lena Duchannes (“Duchannes rhymes with rain”), with black hair, green eyes, and mysterious powers that see her surrounded by the pathetic fallacy. It’s often raining when Lena’s upset, and at one point there’s even a tornado. Lena’s a Caster, a broader term for a witch that, within her family, also includes a palimpsest, a siren and an incubus. The main premise of the story is that Lena’s family is cursed, and on the night of their sixteenth birthday each member of that family becomes ‘claimed’ as either a dark or light Caster. Lena keeps a count on her hand of how many days she has left until this night, but until she gets to that point, she’s tormented by a Carrie-esque group of Gatlin-born-and-raised girls, alongside much of the rest of the town.
I read quite a good blog post on this a few days ago, although, sorry, I can’t find it again for love nor money now! They pointed out that Ethan had a fair few feminine qualities (being very observant of Lena’s clothes, for example), but that if the story had been written from Lena’s perspective, it would have been 900 pages of teenage angst. I agree with that! It’s easy to see why she would be feeling so fraught though – it is made clear that she has no control over which way she will turn. If she is claimed as a Dark Caster, the book says, her personality will completely change, and she’ll no longer be able to see the family she has grown up with (apart from Ridley, I guess).
I did enjoy the story – it was fast paced, there was always enough going on to hold my attention, and there was a great twist at the end that I didn’t see coming. I really liked the fact that Lena craved normality, even though it was, ironically, the thing that Ethan hates about his town. As a teenager with medical/weight/my share of social issues, I could really relate to the idea that, despite whatever else she had going on, she just wanted to be able to do what everyone else does, no matter how boring or basic it may seem. That really resonated with me.
I was also really fascinated with the character of Ridley. She came strutting onto the scene and automatically made my jaw drop, as I think she was supposed to. Even when we’re told she’s a Dark Caster, her struggle with good and bad always seems to be lurking somewhere. <spoiler>I thought it really added grit to the book that she and Lena were best friends all through their childhood – you can really tell that Ridley still wants what’s best for Lena, even if that later translates to her trying to help Sarafine turn Lena towards the dark side. Then, later on, it’s obvious she has feelings for Link, and even the darkness within her can’t squash that. It’s an intriguing conflict!</spoiler>
However, I think this book will only ever be a guilty pleasure, and that’s because of the love thing. Now, I must admit, it’s not as bad as the Twilight film (which sickened me, and put me off reading the books), where Bella and Edward meet and she’s almost straight away “in love” with him. However, it’s still obvious almost from the beginning that by the end of the book, Lena and Ethan will have said those 3 overused, under-meant words – “I love you”. She’s 15, and he’s 16, by the way. <spoiler>The book manages to make it seem like their destiny by making their ancestors romantically linked, but I’m still not sure.</spoiler> I admit this may be because I’m slightly biased; I’ve never been in love, and didn’t actually have a boyfriend as a teenager. Maybe it is really easy to fall in love, I don’t know. To me though, being realistic is important – even in a fantasy book. As a reader, I need to be able to relate to the characters in some way, and it seemed like a cliche to make their feelings so intense, despite the events in the book.
Then, there’s the ending. While I really enjoyed the twist at the end, it was over too quickly. <spoiler>There was so much build up to meeting Sarafine, only for her to die (it seemed like) 10 minutes after she was first introduced. Plus, what happened to Ridley? Technically, Lena didn’t choose a side, so I do want to read further on in the series to see what happened to her – I’ll be really disappointed if she’s just forgotten about. As well as this, I want to know more about the name changes – why are they necessary, and do the new names fit them better somehow?</spoiler>
Well, if you’ve made it through my rambling, I’m impressed! I know I haven’t mentioned several important characters (Amma, for one), but I’ve covered most of the things I remember thinking about the book. Overall, I did like it and I reckon I'll see the film when it comes out on DVD, as well as reading more of the series, but I did see some parallels with Twilight, which isn't necessarily a good thing!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Beautiful Creatures is set in the fictional town of Gatlin, South Carolina. Ethan Wate, from whose perspective the book is written, describes his town’s residents as either “stupid or stuck”, and can’t wait to leave, bored with the banality of his life. Fairly soon into the book, the reader is pulled into his dream, where we meet a girl smelling of lemons and rosemary, in need of help. A girl who, although he hasn’t yet met her, Ethan can’t live without.
The girl is Lena Duchannes (“Duchannes rhymes with rain”), with black hair, green eyes, and mysterious powers that see her surrounded by the pathetic fallacy. It’s often raining when Lena’s upset, and at one point there’s even a tornado. Lena’s a Caster, a broader term for a witch that, within her family, also includes a palimpsest, a siren and an incubus. The main premise of the story is that Lena’s family is cursed, and on the night of their sixteenth birthday each member of that family becomes ‘claimed’ as either a dark or light Caster. Lena keeps a count on her hand of how many days she has left until this night, but until she gets to that point, she’s tormented by a Carrie-esque group of Gatlin-born-and-raised girls, alongside much of the rest of the town.
I read quite a good blog post on this a few days ago, although, sorry, I can’t find it again for love nor money now! They pointed out that Ethan had a fair few feminine qualities (being very observant of Lena’s clothes, for example), but that if the story had been written from Lena’s perspective, it would have been 900 pages of teenage angst. I agree with that! It’s easy to see why she would be feeling so fraught though – it is made clear that she has no control over which way she will turn. If she is claimed as a Dark Caster, the book says, her personality will completely change, and she’ll no longer be able to see the family she has grown up with (apart from Ridley, I guess).
I did enjoy the story – it was fast paced, there was always enough going on to hold my attention, and there was a great twist at the end that I didn’t see coming. I really liked the fact that Lena craved normality, even though it was, ironically, the thing that Ethan hates about his town. As a teenager with medical/weight/my share of social issues, I could really relate to the idea that, despite whatever else she had going on, she just wanted to be able to do what everyone else does, no matter how boring or basic it may seem. That really resonated with me.
I was also really fascinated with the character of Ridley. She came strutting onto the scene and automatically made my jaw drop, as I think she was supposed to. Even when we’re told she’s a Dark Caster, her struggle with good and bad always seems to be lurking somewhere. <spoiler>I thought it really added grit to the book that she and Lena were best friends all through their childhood – you can really tell that Ridley still wants what’s best for Lena, even if that later translates to her trying to help Sarafine turn Lena towards the dark side. Then, later on, it’s obvious she has feelings for Link, and even the darkness within her can’t squash that. It’s an intriguing conflict!</spoiler>
However, I think this book will only ever be a guilty pleasure, and that’s because of the love thing. Now, I must admit, it’s not as bad as the Twilight film (which sickened me, and put me off reading the books), where Bella and Edward meet and she’s almost straight away “in love” with him. However, it’s still obvious almost from the beginning that by the end of the book, Lena and Ethan will have said those 3 overused, under-meant words – “I love you”. She’s 15, and he’s 16, by the way. <spoiler>The book manages to make it seem like their destiny by making their ancestors romantically linked, but I’m still not sure.</spoiler> I admit this may be because I’m slightly biased; I’ve never been in love, and didn’t actually have a boyfriend as a teenager. Maybe it is really easy to fall in love, I don’t know. To me though, being realistic is important – even in a fantasy book. As a reader, I need to be able to relate to the characters in some way, and it seemed like a cliche to make their feelings so intense, despite the events in the book.
Then, there’s the ending. While I really enjoyed the twist at the end, it was over too quickly. <spoiler>There was so much build up to meeting Sarafine, only for her to die (it seemed like) 10 minutes after she was first introduced. Plus, what happened to Ridley? Technically, Lena didn’t choose a side, so I do want to read further on in the series to see what happened to her – I’ll be really disappointed if she’s just forgotten about. As well as this, I want to know more about the name changes – why are they necessary, and do the new names fit them better somehow?</spoiler>
Well, if you’ve made it through my rambling, I’m impressed! I know I haven’t mentioned several important characters (Amma, for one), but I’ve covered most of the things I remember thinking about the book. Overall, I did like it and I reckon I'll see the film when it comes out on DVD, as well as reading more of the series, but I did see some parallels with Twilight, which isn't necessarily a good thing!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
Baby Driver is simply the epitome of cool, and if you’re looking for a fun and frisky thrill-ride of a movie, this is sure to be the ticket!
Edgar Wright’s Baby Driver is a pulse-pounding, jukebox-jamming blast! In this wildly entertaining crime thriller, a young man called Baby is the perennial pedal-pushing getaway driver for an Atlanta crime boss known as Doc. The two of them have worked countless jobs together, and in Doc’s mind, Baby is the only one worthy behind the wheel. Unbeknownst to Doc, however, Baby plans to wipe his hands clean and hit the road for good as soon as the opportunity arrives. Tensions steadily rise as this perfect getaway driver tries to find a way out and get away from his life of crime.
The premise in Baby Driver is a familiar one, although the movie itself is anything but. Sure, it features the cliché of one last job, but the motives here are a bit different and morality is a big focus. I’ll spare the details, but this crime movie has a heart and a conscience, and at its core, it’s really more of a love story, as Baby tries to make a daring dash for freedom all in the name of romance. After meeting a nice girl named Debora at a local diner, Baby has finally found a reason to want to break free from his past so he can live a life of love. With its romantic drive, its high-octane action, and its fresh and funky soundtrack, Baby Driver is an action thriller that would make for a perfect date night movie.
While I did very much enjoy Baby Driver, it did leave a worrisome first impression. One of the earliest scenes verges on the borderline of being a musical, and as well-crafted as the one-take scene may be, it sort of rubbed me the wrong way by making Baby look like a goofball. It was trying too hard to be cool and to me it ended up feeling pretty pretentious. Really what got me engaged in the movie was the film’s stellar supporting cast, led by Jamie Foxx, Jon Hamm, and Jon Bernthal, all of whom play bank robbers working for Doc. By the time the film’s second robbery rolled around, all else was forgiven, and I was eagerly strapped in for the ride.
The cast in this movie is outstanding. Foxx steals the show in every scene he’s in, playing a violent loose-cannon thug known as Bats. His intensity, wit, and strong distrust of others make Bats a character you won’t want to take your eyes off of. Hamm’s character Buddy is less abrasive, but no less intimidating when he’s angry. I really loved watching his nice guy façade crumble away when things got personal. Ansel Elgort, the teenage heartthrob from The Fault in Our Stars, has enough charm and coolness to make Baby an easy character to root for. Meanwhile, Kevin Spacey does a wonderful job balancing the complexity of his character, Doc. Eiza González is lovely and cool as Buddy’s girlfriend Darling, and Jon Bernthal truly makes the most out of his limited screen-time. All in all, I have nothing but praise for the actors as well as their well-written characters.
A big part of what makes Baby Driver so cool is its killer soundtrack, and it’s not just the music, but the way that it’s incorporated into the movie. The music itself is practically a character in the movie, as Baby is always playing songs through his iPod to drown out the ringing in his ears caused by a condition known as tinnitus. It’s used to great effect in terms of both plot and action. The movie’s eclectic music mix features over 40 songs, and much of the action is brilliantly synced up to the beat. The timing really ratchets up the fun factor and makes for a uniquely wild experience. I don’t know a good half of the songs in the movie, but this diversity helps give Baby Driver an identity of its own, and I look forward to taking the soundtrack for another spin.
Baby Driver is so fresh, fun, and entertaining that you’ve really just got to go see it for yourself. Edgar Wright has really made something special with his upbeat, funky crime thriller. The characters are compelling, the action is superb, and the comedy is hysterical. It’s one of the most laugh-out-loud funny movies of the year, but also full of edge-of-your-seat excitement. The movie builds tension so well, and it rarely takes its foot off the gas. I particularly loved the final act when Baby propels the intensity to new heights by taking charge of his own destiny, bringing forth an exciting and unpredictable turn of events. It puts an exhilarating and frantic twist on what is already a wild movie.
That’s not to say it’s a perfect movie, though. The ending itself left me feeling pretty unsatisfied. It forgoes the predictable ending for something different, and as respectable as that may be, it went on for too long and was a little too hokey and hard to believe for my taste. After riding high on Baby Driver’s adrenaline for so long, the ending botches the film’s momentum by devoting too much time to unnecessary explanation. While I even like the way the story concludes, I wish it could have gotten there a little more smoothly.
Bumpy start and finish aside, I really had a great time Baby Driver. It is an incredibly fun and energetic experience that the whole audience seemed to enjoy. It’s rhythmic, it’s stylish, and it’s not like any other film you’ll see this year. Baby Driver is simply the epitome of cool, and if you’re looking for a fun and frisky ride in theaters this summer, Baby Driver is sure to be the ticket.
The premise in Baby Driver is a familiar one, although the movie itself is anything but. Sure, it features the cliché of one last job, but the motives here are a bit different and morality is a big focus. I’ll spare the details, but this crime movie has a heart and a conscience, and at its core, it’s really more of a love story, as Baby tries to make a daring dash for freedom all in the name of romance. After meeting a nice girl named Debora at a local diner, Baby has finally found a reason to want to break free from his past so he can live a life of love. With its romantic drive, its high-octane action, and its fresh and funky soundtrack, Baby Driver is an action thriller that would make for a perfect date night movie.
While I did very much enjoy Baby Driver, it did leave a worrisome first impression. One of the earliest scenes verges on the borderline of being a musical, and as well-crafted as the one-take scene may be, it sort of rubbed me the wrong way by making Baby look like a goofball. It was trying too hard to be cool and to me it ended up feeling pretty pretentious. Really what got me engaged in the movie was the film’s stellar supporting cast, led by Jamie Foxx, Jon Hamm, and Jon Bernthal, all of whom play bank robbers working for Doc. By the time the film’s second robbery rolled around, all else was forgiven, and I was eagerly strapped in for the ride.
The cast in this movie is outstanding. Foxx steals the show in every scene he’s in, playing a violent loose-cannon thug known as Bats. His intensity, wit, and strong distrust of others make Bats a character you won’t want to take your eyes off of. Hamm’s character Buddy is less abrasive, but no less intimidating when he’s angry. I really loved watching his nice guy façade crumble away when things got personal. Ansel Elgort, the teenage heartthrob from The Fault in Our Stars, has enough charm and coolness to make Baby an easy character to root for. Meanwhile, Kevin Spacey does a wonderful job balancing the complexity of his character, Doc. Eiza González is lovely and cool as Buddy’s girlfriend Darling, and Jon Bernthal truly makes the most out of his limited screen-time. All in all, I have nothing but praise for the actors as well as their well-written characters.
A big part of what makes Baby Driver so cool is its killer soundtrack, and it’s not just the music, but the way that it’s incorporated into the movie. The music itself is practically a character in the movie, as Baby is always playing songs through his iPod to drown out the ringing in his ears caused by a condition known as tinnitus. It’s used to great effect in terms of both plot and action. The movie’s eclectic music mix features over 40 songs, and much of the action is brilliantly synced up to the beat. The timing really ratchets up the fun factor and makes for a uniquely wild experience. I don’t know a good half of the songs in the movie, but this diversity helps give Baby Driver an identity of its own, and I look forward to taking the soundtrack for another spin.
Baby Driver is so fresh, fun, and entertaining that you’ve really just got to go see it for yourself. Edgar Wright has really made something special with his upbeat, funky crime thriller. The characters are compelling, the action is superb, and the comedy is hysterical. It’s one of the most laugh-out-loud funny movies of the year, but also full of edge-of-your-seat excitement. The movie builds tension so well, and it rarely takes its foot off the gas. I particularly loved the final act when Baby propels the intensity to new heights by taking charge of his own destiny, bringing forth an exciting and unpredictable turn of events. It puts an exhilarating and frantic twist on what is already a wild movie.
That’s not to say it’s a perfect movie, though. The ending itself left me feeling pretty unsatisfied. It forgoes the predictable ending for something different, and as respectable as that may be, it went on for too long and was a little too hokey and hard to believe for my taste. After riding high on Baby Driver’s adrenaline for so long, the ending botches the film’s momentum by devoting too much time to unnecessary explanation. While I even like the way the story concludes, I wish it could have gotten there a little more smoothly.
Bumpy start and finish aside, I really had a great time Baby Driver. It is an incredibly fun and energetic experience that the whole audience seemed to enjoy. It’s rhythmic, it’s stylish, and it’s not like any other film you’ll see this year. Baby Driver is simply the epitome of cool, and if you’re looking for a fun and frisky ride in theaters this summer, Baby Driver is sure to be the ticket.
Ande Thomas (69 KP) rated The Time Traveler's Wife in Books
May 30, 2019
I've been thinking a lot about what I would write about <i>The Time Traveler's Wife,</i> partly because it seems one usually falls into one of two camps: Love it, hate it. It turns out, I belong to the latter. I won't bother with the sci-fi elements, the could he/couldn't he, the exploration of time travel as a plot device - I'm always willing to engage with a story as long as it follows it's own rules. My problems run deeper.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Jessica - Where the Book Ends (15 KP) rated Take My Hand (Take My Hand, #1) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
This is my first experience with a book by Nicola Haken. The synopsis sounded promising and I have been looking for a new series to read, so I thought I would give this one a go.
This story is of two people trying to start their lives over after terrible events that occurred in each of their lives. They get thrown together and together they learn how to love...again.
The story is primarily set in London, so that's amazing! I'm obsessed with London and all things British, so I was SOOOOO excited for this book. I wanted to fall in LOVE with this book, and these characters, but at best I only fell in LIKE with this book. Sigh.
Dexter and Emily are great characters. They have the tormented past, the rocky relationship, and undying love for one another. Okay so it sounds like this book has everything a book needs. But still... I just couldn't fall in love, and let me tell you why.
1) Dexter is from the U.S.A. so when he moves to London, he clearly doesn't understand all of the lingo and slang that the English use. Which is fine. Emily used a lot of these slang words, "ginger minger" being an example of one, and so the narrator would pause and explain what each one meant. This was very helpful throughout the story. However, this is the part that bothers me. Throughout the story when Dex would have a chapter and be talking sometimes I would get confused and he started to sound like Emily to me. I felt like the two were blending together.
2) There were several times throughout this book I wanted to literally reach into my kindle and slap Emily. I understand she's never really been in a relationship before, and I understand she's socially awkward, but my god! It's like this girl is from another planet and she doesn't understand human interactions, AT ALL! She blushes at everything - even when it's not sexual, she doesn't know how to talk to people, and she doesn't know how to be in a relationship. If the guy is a alcoholic and throws stuff at the wall, and runs out on you every time he's scared. You drop him and run. It just didn't seem realistic at all.
He drank and ran out on her when she was in a strange country with a strange woman she'd never met, and he was just like, peace out. Then she had the nerve to feel sorry. He kept secrets from her and she had the nerve to scold herself for feeling that way. It just didn't feel real to me. I felt like she gave in to him too easily. Now, before you all comment like crazy about how I don't understand alcoholics and how I don't know how they operate and how I don't understand addiction, let me just tell you this... You're wrong. I understand, and I understand better than some. I was a teenage alcoholic. It ruined my life and it took me YEARS to get it back together. SO I GET IT.
3) Now that all that's out of the way on to the next. I didn't like that Emily was so clearly afraid to say SEX or PENIS, or VAGINA. If you can't say it or talk about it, you shouldn't be doing it. She really needed to grow up. I understand that some people just don't feel comfortable talking about it, but at some point you need to draw a line. Emily was just a little too chaste for my preference and I think the description of the sex scenes from Emily's perspective were out of place for this very reason. The chapters where she was the narrator, she shouldn't have been comfortable describing what was going down. I feel like the scene should have been set up and then a fade to black would have been more appropriate.
4) Lastly, Rachel... UHHHH MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER EVER!! At first I thought she was badass! Here you have this girl who has lived her life in a wheelchair and has had to compensate for it by being independent, coloring her hair funky colors, and getting tattoos. Awesome! Right... WRONG. She then opened her mouth. OMG! She's not independent and trying to stand out, she's just down right offensive, and she didn't seem to fit at all in this story.
I know by now you're probably thinking "Why did you give this book three stars if you clearly hated it." Right? Well, I didn't hate it, at all. I liked it, it evoked emotion, it made me think and it made me feel. Those things are SOOO important when writing a book. This author has some definite promise, and I know there are a couple more books in this series. I will probably read them since this book ended on a cliffhanger (which was awesome, btw). I want to know what happens to these characters, and I'm hoping they both grow up a bit in the upcoming books.
My one last thing I'd like to point out is the editing. Now, I don't know if I got a pre-edited copy or if I got the final draft. So, I'm not considering the editing in my rating, because I can't be certain. I do feel that this book needs some serious proofreading, but again it may not be that way in a purchased copy so again don't hold that minor detail against the author, because no one is perfect.
I will definitely read other books by this author. She has a great writing style, her story flows very nicely, there aren't any dull moments, and her story is one that tears at the heartstrings. I in no way mean this review to sound as if I'm attacking her, when in fact its the complete opposite. I commend her for writing this book, and I think she did it well. Plus, the most important thing EVER, her writing made me think and feel which is what good writing should do. So, I implore you to give this book a chance don't let my feelings and observations deter you from reading a book with great potential that you may absolutely love!
This story is of two people trying to start their lives over after terrible events that occurred in each of their lives. They get thrown together and together they learn how to love...again.
The story is primarily set in London, so that's amazing! I'm obsessed with London and all things British, so I was SOOOOO excited for this book. I wanted to fall in LOVE with this book, and these characters, but at best I only fell in LIKE with this book. Sigh.
Dexter and Emily are great characters. They have the tormented past, the rocky relationship, and undying love for one another. Okay so it sounds like this book has everything a book needs. But still... I just couldn't fall in love, and let me tell you why.
1) Dexter is from the U.S.A. so when he moves to London, he clearly doesn't understand all of the lingo and slang that the English use. Which is fine. Emily used a lot of these slang words, "ginger minger" being an example of one, and so the narrator would pause and explain what each one meant. This was very helpful throughout the story. However, this is the part that bothers me. Throughout the story when Dex would have a chapter and be talking sometimes I would get confused and he started to sound like Emily to me. I felt like the two were blending together.
2) There were several times throughout this book I wanted to literally reach into my kindle and slap Emily. I understand she's never really been in a relationship before, and I understand she's socially awkward, but my god! It's like this girl is from another planet and she doesn't understand human interactions, AT ALL! She blushes at everything - even when it's not sexual, she doesn't know how to talk to people, and she doesn't know how to be in a relationship. If the guy is a alcoholic and throws stuff at the wall, and runs out on you every time he's scared. You drop him and run. It just didn't seem realistic at all.
He drank and ran out on her when she was in a strange country with a strange woman she'd never met, and he was just like, peace out. Then she had the nerve to feel sorry. He kept secrets from her and she had the nerve to scold herself for feeling that way. It just didn't feel real to me. I felt like she gave in to him too easily. Now, before you all comment like crazy about how I don't understand alcoholics and how I don't know how they operate and how I don't understand addiction, let me just tell you this... You're wrong. I understand, and I understand better than some. I was a teenage alcoholic. It ruined my life and it took me YEARS to get it back together. SO I GET IT.
3) Now that all that's out of the way on to the next. I didn't like that Emily was so clearly afraid to say SEX or PENIS, or VAGINA. If you can't say it or talk about it, you shouldn't be doing it. She really needed to grow up. I understand that some people just don't feel comfortable talking about it, but at some point you need to draw a line. Emily was just a little too chaste for my preference and I think the description of the sex scenes from Emily's perspective were out of place for this very reason. The chapters where she was the narrator, she shouldn't have been comfortable describing what was going down. I feel like the scene should have been set up and then a fade to black would have been more appropriate.
4) Lastly, Rachel... UHHHH MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER EVER!! At first I thought she was badass! Here you have this girl who has lived her life in a wheelchair and has had to compensate for it by being independent, coloring her hair funky colors, and getting tattoos. Awesome! Right... WRONG. She then opened her mouth. OMG! She's not independent and trying to stand out, she's just down right offensive, and she didn't seem to fit at all in this story.
I know by now you're probably thinking "Why did you give this book three stars if you clearly hated it." Right? Well, I didn't hate it, at all. I liked it, it evoked emotion, it made me think and it made me feel. Those things are SOOO important when writing a book. This author has some definite promise, and I know there are a couple more books in this series. I will probably read them since this book ended on a cliffhanger (which was awesome, btw). I want to know what happens to these characters, and I'm hoping they both grow up a bit in the upcoming books.
My one last thing I'd like to point out is the editing. Now, I don't know if I got a pre-edited copy or if I got the final draft. So, I'm not considering the editing in my rating, because I can't be certain. I do feel that this book needs some serious proofreading, but again it may not be that way in a purchased copy so again don't hold that minor detail against the author, because no one is perfect.
I will definitely read other books by this author. She has a great writing style, her story flows very nicely, there aren't any dull moments, and her story is one that tears at the heartstrings. I in no way mean this review to sound as if I'm attacking her, when in fact its the complete opposite. I commend her for writing this book, and I think she did it well. Plus, the most important thing EVER, her writing made me think and feel which is what good writing should do. So, I implore you to give this book a chance don't let my feelings and observations deter you from reading a book with great potential that you may absolutely love!
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Cinderella is Dead in Books
Jun 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Thank you to Netgalley and Kalynn Bayron for giving me the opportunity to read an advance copy of Cinderella is Dead in exchange for an honest review.
With such a strong title to a novel, it’s easy to predict that an author would struggle to maintain the sense of danger and mystery that is immediately evoked. However, as Kalynn Bayron opens on the revelation that Cinderella has been dead for 200 years and introduces us to two young women hiding from those who are sure to kill them, I think it is safe to say that she has the drama side of things covered!
The kingdom of Mersaille was once ruled by none other than Prince Charming and Cinderella. After her untimely death, Cinderella’s tale is held in almost biblical stature for generations, with young girls reciting it each night in preparation for their own chance to attend an annual ball once they turn 16 and wishing for their own fairy godmother to grant their happily ever after.
However, as the reader enters the town of Lille 200 years later, we witness that life within the kingdom is far from that of a fairytale. The balls that act as a tribute to Cinderella are mandatory meat markets with lecherous “suitors”, domestic violence and the suppression of women is commonplace and the ruler, Prince Manford, thrives on the power, fear and violence.
The reader witnesses this abysmal society through Bayron’s use of a first-person perspective: that of our protagonist Sophia. Sophia is everything a modern protagonist should be: she questions the unjust world around her and, having just turned 16 is preparing to attend her first ball, not with excitement, but with trepidation.
Sophia reveals to the reader that a girl only has three chances to be chosen by a suitor at the ball, after that she is considered forfeit, taken away from her family in disgrace and placed either into a workhouse or service. Men, however, are under no such conditions: they can attend balls when they wish and can choose a number of girls if they want to. Many girls’ singular hope is to be chosen by a good man at the ball, one who will not beat her, perhaps even one who will take them away from Lille. This is not enough for Sophia, she wants more for her life and, as she says herself:
“I don’t want to be saved by some knight in shining armor. I’d like to be the one in the armor, and I’d like to be the one doing the saving.”
At the beginning of the book, Sophia’s main gripe with the society she lives in is that it will not allow her to be with Erin, the girl she loves. As the book continues, the underlying theme of the rights and treatment of women strengthens, along with Sophia, but the first few pages at least are centered on the teenage relationship between Sophia and Erin.
What I absolutely adored about Bayron’s writing style here is the complete lack of shock or awe in this relationship: it is mentioned right from the start and at no point in this novel does Sophia “come out”, there is simply no need. All those around Sophia, who know her and care for her, are aware of her feelings for Erin and, although Sophia is occasionally referred to as “different”, the author chooses to abolish any unnecessary labels within her novel.
Unfortunately, Bayron does not have an easy ride in store for Sophia: reeling from a firm separation from Erin, Sophia is cast a lifeline, an “easy way out” in the form of a local boy who is also “different”. Sadly, this option is quickly and dramatically ripped away from her: forcing her to find her strength pretty damn quickly as she begins a life as an outlaw.
Along her path, Sophia meets two strong female characters: Constance and Amina. Although, wildly different, both these women play a significant role in Sophia’s self-discovery.
Amina is as far from the traditional fairy godmother image as you can get and, although she feels guilt for her previous actions, it takes meeting Sophia for her to recognise her previous denial and to help change the way of the world. Amina is a protector to Sophia right to the end, in her own unique way.
Constance, what can we say about Constance? I defy anyone to read this book and not fall in love with this girl! Constance possesses the strength that Sophia does not yet recognise within herself; she is fiery and, as a descendant of an “evil stepsister”, leads a resistance movement to uncover and publicise the truth about the real tale of Cinderella. Despite, technically saving Sophia towards the beginning of the story, Constance is not Sophia’s saviour: nor is Sophia the saviour; however, the power that they find together is monumental.
Constance is a complete juxtaposition to Erin: whereas Erin accepts the rules of society out of fear for herself and her family, Constance actively rebels against them. It is almost as if they represent the paths Sophia has to choose from. Nevertheless, along their adventure, Sophia and Constance’s relationship strengthens into love. This is no fairytale, love at first sight deal though! If anything, the slow-burning romance between the two made it more believable and I really appreciated that Sophia didn’t just rebound due to Erin’s choices: she had been burnt and she was still unsure of her own feelings never mind anyone else’s.
At the hands of Bayron, Sophia experiences heartbreak, friendship, murder, love and conspiracy: she is on the brink of danger too many times to count and is constantly second guessing who she can trust. Yet, it is clear that the author adores her main character: Sophia’s journey to realise that she is enough is incredible and the strength that she finds within herself is inspirational. Sophia is also surrounded by a cast of strong female characters: there are no Prince Charming’s in this novel that’s for sure!
I wasn’t that far into this book when I decided I need to read more of Kalynn Bayron’s work. I love how there are no chapters in this novel, we are taken on this relentless journey with Sophia: the reader is not given a chance to stop and take stock, reflect or rest until it is all over and this creates the tensest experience. Even we don’t know who to trust towards the end!
‘Cinderella is Dead’ is powerful, thought-provoking and is constantly leaving the reader guessing. On a basic level the novel deals with violence, love, politics and a little bit of necromancy thrown in there for good measure. However, the intelligent writing as well as the massive plot twist and the subjects of LGBTQ love, women’s rights and domestic violence lifts this novel from that basic level into, what I predict could be a bestseller.
With such a strong title to a novel, it’s easy to predict that an author would struggle to maintain the sense of danger and mystery that is immediately evoked. However, as Kalynn Bayron opens on the revelation that Cinderella has been dead for 200 years and introduces us to two young women hiding from those who are sure to kill them, I think it is safe to say that she has the drama side of things covered!
The kingdom of Mersaille was once ruled by none other than Prince Charming and Cinderella. After her untimely death, Cinderella’s tale is held in almost biblical stature for generations, with young girls reciting it each night in preparation for their own chance to attend an annual ball once they turn 16 and wishing for their own fairy godmother to grant their happily ever after.
However, as the reader enters the town of Lille 200 years later, we witness that life within the kingdom is far from that of a fairytale. The balls that act as a tribute to Cinderella are mandatory meat markets with lecherous “suitors”, domestic violence and the suppression of women is commonplace and the ruler, Prince Manford, thrives on the power, fear and violence.
The reader witnesses this abysmal society through Bayron’s use of a first-person perspective: that of our protagonist Sophia. Sophia is everything a modern protagonist should be: she questions the unjust world around her and, having just turned 16 is preparing to attend her first ball, not with excitement, but with trepidation.
Sophia reveals to the reader that a girl only has three chances to be chosen by a suitor at the ball, after that she is considered forfeit, taken away from her family in disgrace and placed either into a workhouse or service. Men, however, are under no such conditions: they can attend balls when they wish and can choose a number of girls if they want to. Many girls’ singular hope is to be chosen by a good man at the ball, one who will not beat her, perhaps even one who will take them away from Lille. This is not enough for Sophia, she wants more for her life and, as she says herself:
“I don’t want to be saved by some knight in shining armor. I’d like to be the one in the armor, and I’d like to be the one doing the saving.”
At the beginning of the book, Sophia’s main gripe with the society she lives in is that it will not allow her to be with Erin, the girl she loves. As the book continues, the underlying theme of the rights and treatment of women strengthens, along with Sophia, but the first few pages at least are centered on the teenage relationship between Sophia and Erin.
What I absolutely adored about Bayron’s writing style here is the complete lack of shock or awe in this relationship: it is mentioned right from the start and at no point in this novel does Sophia “come out”, there is simply no need. All those around Sophia, who know her and care for her, are aware of her feelings for Erin and, although Sophia is occasionally referred to as “different”, the author chooses to abolish any unnecessary labels within her novel.
Unfortunately, Bayron does not have an easy ride in store for Sophia: reeling from a firm separation from Erin, Sophia is cast a lifeline, an “easy way out” in the form of a local boy who is also “different”. Sadly, this option is quickly and dramatically ripped away from her: forcing her to find her strength pretty damn quickly as she begins a life as an outlaw.
Along her path, Sophia meets two strong female characters: Constance and Amina. Although, wildly different, both these women play a significant role in Sophia’s self-discovery.
Amina is as far from the traditional fairy godmother image as you can get and, although she feels guilt for her previous actions, it takes meeting Sophia for her to recognise her previous denial and to help change the way of the world. Amina is a protector to Sophia right to the end, in her own unique way.
Constance, what can we say about Constance? I defy anyone to read this book and not fall in love with this girl! Constance possesses the strength that Sophia does not yet recognise within herself; she is fiery and, as a descendant of an “evil stepsister”, leads a resistance movement to uncover and publicise the truth about the real tale of Cinderella. Despite, technically saving Sophia towards the beginning of the story, Constance is not Sophia’s saviour: nor is Sophia the saviour; however, the power that they find together is monumental.
Constance is a complete juxtaposition to Erin: whereas Erin accepts the rules of society out of fear for herself and her family, Constance actively rebels against them. It is almost as if they represent the paths Sophia has to choose from. Nevertheless, along their adventure, Sophia and Constance’s relationship strengthens into love. This is no fairytale, love at first sight deal though! If anything, the slow-burning romance between the two made it more believable and I really appreciated that Sophia didn’t just rebound due to Erin’s choices: she had been burnt and she was still unsure of her own feelings never mind anyone else’s.
At the hands of Bayron, Sophia experiences heartbreak, friendship, murder, love and conspiracy: she is on the brink of danger too many times to count and is constantly second guessing who she can trust. Yet, it is clear that the author adores her main character: Sophia’s journey to realise that she is enough is incredible and the strength that she finds within herself is inspirational. Sophia is also surrounded by a cast of strong female characters: there are no Prince Charming’s in this novel that’s for sure!
I wasn’t that far into this book when I decided I need to read more of Kalynn Bayron’s work. I love how there are no chapters in this novel, we are taken on this relentless journey with Sophia: the reader is not given a chance to stop and take stock, reflect or rest until it is all over and this creates the tensest experience. Even we don’t know who to trust towards the end!
‘Cinderella is Dead’ is powerful, thought-provoking and is constantly leaving the reader guessing. On a basic level the novel deals with violence, love, politics and a little bit of necromancy thrown in there for good measure. However, the intelligent writing as well as the massive plot twist and the subjects of LGBTQ love, women’s rights and domestic violence lifts this novel from that basic level into, what I predict could be a bestseller.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Game Of Thrones in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Look on the bright side, we all said, without really believing it, when lockdown hit in March – time to watch those box sets we’ve been putting off. Well that was, of course, a great idea! For me that box set was possibly the biggest of all: the behemoth that is GOT.
Much like when a new band gets big quickly and you refuse to listen to the hype, I avoided watching the biggest show in the world, even when it was on in the same room as I tried to read a book in the other corner. It wasn’t that I thought I wouldn’t like it, but more that I didn’t believe it could be anywhere near as good as folk were making it out to be, especially as season one looked like only a slight step up on the swords and sandles exploitation-fests that had been going around. I labelled it “Tits and Dragons” and got on with my life for the next 8 years.
March 2020 will go down in history as the biggest spike in streaming TV services the globe will ever see. Literally millions of previously casual watchers, who had been busy having lives and jobs, turned to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV and iPlayer etc, in search of endless hours of easy entertainment they could immerse their bored and twitchy minds inside of. Without internet at home, I had to go a bit more old school and rely on my daughter posting me the DVDs of GOT season by season.
I found season one enjoyable, with caveats, as it seemed to be one massive exposition (and sexposition) workshop. Obviously the main characters were being set up for big storylines down the road. In which sense it reminded me of a soap opera; in how it flitted between characters and relationships, never dwelling on one plot point for more than two minutes. I liked the way the production had set itself up though – the sets and costumes were of a much higher level than was usual for this kind of thing. Then there was those great opening credits, which become impossible not to hum along to as you get more into it.
Sadly, the first big shock moment didn’t shock me, as I’d heard so much about it on social media 9 years ago. But it was still very well done. Bold and brave; to take out a big name that early was a master stroke. By the end of S1E9 I was properly hooked. Although it helped I didn’t have anything else to do!
The next two weeks I had to wait for season two to be posted out, so I embarked on watching all the DVD commentaries too to kill some time in the evenings whilst I waited. This is almost certainly something I wouldn’t have done under normal circumstances and I believe it is what cemented my enjoyment of it as a whole. Listening to the cast and crew reminisce about what a great time they had, and how close they all were, really helped put it into context for me. I was already loving Peter Dinklage and Lena Headey, but their humour and irreverence in the commentaries made it feel like there were pals in the room watching it with me.
By season two and beyond, I was looking at maps, memorizing every minor character’s name, house and motto, and just immersing in it to the point of obsession. As, I guess, millions of people had already done over the years, but now I got what the fuss was all about. It is an addictive show; you have to know what happens next, you simply can’t leave it alone! Whether it is hissing and booing at Joffrey, or loving to hate Cersei, or siding with the bastards and broken things, there is always something engaging going on – and when a character you disliked dies horribly it is so satisfying!
It is a weird mix, however, of moments so horribly signposted, with some dubious acting, and moments of real surprise and emotion delivered with great acting. Many of the characters really grow into their skins as the actors get more familiar and comfortable being them. The writers too get better at putting the right words in their mouths, and learn to minimise the exposition moments. The young ones in particular really grow impressively as it goes on into seasons 3 and 4. Maisie Williams as the slightly sadistic loner Arya Stark especially. I loved how none stereotypical that character was, and have to say her relationship with The Hound was my favourite thing in the whole show.
At the climax of season four, which I believe was the peak of it artistically, the story arc of Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister, aka The Imp, becomes so compellingly good you can’t take your eyes off him. I had already come to the conclusion that his scenes were the best ones, but this went to 11 on the dial. And it gets better thinking back on it too. Which can’t truly be said of where they go with John Snow and Daenarys, who are ostensibly the main draw by this point, as all storylines seem to mirror their journeys on opposite sides of the world; a song of ice and fire, indeed.
Seasons 5 and 6 continued to be great, even though the dramatic peaks were hard to top. What did improve was the big set pieces, as episodes such as Hardhome and Battle of the Bastards upper the bar on huge battles, staged masterfully. There were things happening that I had never seen in a TV show before, both creatively and budget spent. Watching some of the making of documentaries was fascinating in this regard. The props department alone was astonishingly detailed, to Lord of the Rings degrees, properly impressive!
To go into story and scene details here is pointless, and I don’t want to include any more spoilers than I already have, just in case there is anyone else like me, that hasn’t done the whole journey yet. Obviously, there was some controversy in where seasons 7 and especially 8 went with some storylines and characters. I thought it was mostly fine, to be honest, I just went with it. But it did become a little stretched and hurried, as it raced towards its conclusion. It’s hard for me to get a proper impression of how tense and then annoying it would be to wait a long time for a new season and then have it not go where you imagined it would. Not a problem for me, as I blitzed the final 4 seasons in about a week.
As the episode ratings of season 8 on IMDb indicate, folk were not happy. There was an element of anti-climax, to be fair, but what else could it have been, now so many people claim it as their own? The end isn’t perfect, and that may have a lot to do with the fact they stopped following the books, because they hadn’t been written. In all honestly, I didn’t care. It was spectacular and diverting enough to keep my attention, and my investment in the characters not brutally killed off was not teenage enough to take it personally. I do have sympathy for fans that felt their loyalty betrayed, but come on… it’s just a TV show.
Watching the same fictional world for more than 70 actual hours can do things to you brain. In conclusion I would say I loved going there! The good things always outweighed the annoying things, and it is an experience I would recommend to anyone who hasn’t done it. Whatever age you are, it is a must see phenomenon, like The Sopranos – oh wait, I haven’t seen that yet either…
Much like when a new band gets big quickly and you refuse to listen to the hype, I avoided watching the biggest show in the world, even when it was on in the same room as I tried to read a book in the other corner. It wasn’t that I thought I wouldn’t like it, but more that I didn’t believe it could be anywhere near as good as folk were making it out to be, especially as season one looked like only a slight step up on the swords and sandles exploitation-fests that had been going around. I labelled it “Tits and Dragons” and got on with my life for the next 8 years.
March 2020 will go down in history as the biggest spike in streaming TV services the globe will ever see. Literally millions of previously casual watchers, who had been busy having lives and jobs, turned to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV and iPlayer etc, in search of endless hours of easy entertainment they could immerse their bored and twitchy minds inside of. Without internet at home, I had to go a bit more old school and rely on my daughter posting me the DVDs of GOT season by season.
I found season one enjoyable, with caveats, as it seemed to be one massive exposition (and sexposition) workshop. Obviously the main characters were being set up for big storylines down the road. In which sense it reminded me of a soap opera; in how it flitted between characters and relationships, never dwelling on one plot point for more than two minutes. I liked the way the production had set itself up though – the sets and costumes were of a much higher level than was usual for this kind of thing. Then there was those great opening credits, which become impossible not to hum along to as you get more into it.
Sadly, the first big shock moment didn’t shock me, as I’d heard so much about it on social media 9 years ago. But it was still very well done. Bold and brave; to take out a big name that early was a master stroke. By the end of S1E9 I was properly hooked. Although it helped I didn’t have anything else to do!
The next two weeks I had to wait for season two to be posted out, so I embarked on watching all the DVD commentaries too to kill some time in the evenings whilst I waited. This is almost certainly something I wouldn’t have done under normal circumstances and I believe it is what cemented my enjoyment of it as a whole. Listening to the cast and crew reminisce about what a great time they had, and how close they all were, really helped put it into context for me. I was already loving Peter Dinklage and Lena Headey, but their humour and irreverence in the commentaries made it feel like there were pals in the room watching it with me.
By season two and beyond, I was looking at maps, memorizing every minor character’s name, house and motto, and just immersing in it to the point of obsession. As, I guess, millions of people had already done over the years, but now I got what the fuss was all about. It is an addictive show; you have to know what happens next, you simply can’t leave it alone! Whether it is hissing and booing at Joffrey, or loving to hate Cersei, or siding with the bastards and broken things, there is always something engaging going on – and when a character you disliked dies horribly it is so satisfying!
It is a weird mix, however, of moments so horribly signposted, with some dubious acting, and moments of real surprise and emotion delivered with great acting. Many of the characters really grow into their skins as the actors get more familiar and comfortable being them. The writers too get better at putting the right words in their mouths, and learn to minimise the exposition moments. The young ones in particular really grow impressively as it goes on into seasons 3 and 4. Maisie Williams as the slightly sadistic loner Arya Stark especially. I loved how none stereotypical that character was, and have to say her relationship with The Hound was my favourite thing in the whole show.
At the climax of season four, which I believe was the peak of it artistically, the story arc of Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister, aka The Imp, becomes so compellingly good you can’t take your eyes off him. I had already come to the conclusion that his scenes were the best ones, but this went to 11 on the dial. And it gets better thinking back on it too. Which can’t truly be said of where they go with John Snow and Daenarys, who are ostensibly the main draw by this point, as all storylines seem to mirror their journeys on opposite sides of the world; a song of ice and fire, indeed.
Seasons 5 and 6 continued to be great, even though the dramatic peaks were hard to top. What did improve was the big set pieces, as episodes such as Hardhome and Battle of the Bastards upper the bar on huge battles, staged masterfully. There were things happening that I had never seen in a TV show before, both creatively and budget spent. Watching some of the making of documentaries was fascinating in this regard. The props department alone was astonishingly detailed, to Lord of the Rings degrees, properly impressive!
To go into story and scene details here is pointless, and I don’t want to include any more spoilers than I already have, just in case there is anyone else like me, that hasn’t done the whole journey yet. Obviously, there was some controversy in where seasons 7 and especially 8 went with some storylines and characters. I thought it was mostly fine, to be honest, I just went with it. But it did become a little stretched and hurried, as it raced towards its conclusion. It’s hard for me to get a proper impression of how tense and then annoying it would be to wait a long time for a new season and then have it not go where you imagined it would. Not a problem for me, as I blitzed the final 4 seasons in about a week.
As the episode ratings of season 8 on IMDb indicate, folk were not happy. There was an element of anti-climax, to be fair, but what else could it have been, now so many people claim it as their own? The end isn’t perfect, and that may have a lot to do with the fact they stopped following the books, because they hadn’t been written. In all honestly, I didn’t care. It was spectacular and diverting enough to keep my attention, and my investment in the characters not brutally killed off was not teenage enough to take it personally. I do have sympathy for fans that felt their loyalty betrayed, but come on… it’s just a TV show.
Watching the same fictional world for more than 70 actual hours can do things to you brain. In conclusion I would say I loved going there! The good things always outweighed the annoying things, and it is an experience I would recommend to anyone who hasn’t done it. Whatever age you are, it is a must see phenomenon, like The Sopranos – oh wait, I haven’t seen that yet either…
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Down These Strange Streets in Books
Mar 1, 2018
This anthology gathers stories from authors who normally write in various genres. The commonality is that each story is a mystery, and there's a fantastic twist to each. Martin's introduction calls such stories the "bastard stepchild" of mystery and horror.
[a:Charlaine Harris|17061|Charlaine Harris|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1307925926p2/17061.jpg]'; "Death by Dahlia," set in the Sookie Stackhouse universe, is one of a series of stories about the vampire Dahlia Lynley-Chivers. Each story stands alone, but my enjoyment grows greater with each addition to her tales. I'd much rather see Dahlia as the main character of a novel than Sookie, to be honest. This story, set at the party for the ascension of a new vampire sherrif, was a little gem, and a nice start to the collection.
"The Bleeding Shadow" by [a:Joe R. Lansdale|58971|Joe R. Lansdale|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1200406474p2/58971.jpg] is grittier from start to finish, set in the south of black folks in the 1950s. A beautiful woman sends her sometime-suitor to find her brother, a blues musician who has gotten into music that isn't of this world. I couldn't be done with this one soon enough, as it gave me the willies. I have a feeling Lansdale would be happy that it stuck with me for a while.
[a:Simon R. Green|41942|Simon R. Green|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1224555729p2/41942.jpg]'s "Hungry Heart" takes us to the Nightside, where John Taylor is hired by a young witch to retrieve her stolen heart. I haven't read any of the Nightside novels, but this is probably the third or fourth short story I've read, and for some reason they never leave me wanting more. I don't hunger for the darkness, I guess. I will give Green points for creativity in evil henchmen, though.
"Styx and Stones" by [a:Steven Saylor|42919|Steven Saylor|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243268148p2/42919.jpg] takes a teenage version of his novel hero Gordianus on a world tour to see the Seven Wonders of the World, and this stop is Babylon. Gordianus and his companion, Antipater, find a murderous ghost in residence near their inn in addition to seeing the Ziggurat, the Gate of Ishtar, and what's left of the Hanging Gardens.
[a:S. M. Stirling|6448047|S. M. Stirling|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg]'s "Pain and Suffering" was unsatisfying to me. It opened with an ex-soldier's combat flashback twisted into something Other, then we learn that the ex-soldier is a cop. He and his partner spend a lot of time investigating an apparent arson and possibly-connected kidnapping. The flashbacks repeat. There's more, but I don't want to spoil the story. I just felt that there was a lot of build-up for very little payoff, and that perhaps this story was meant as a teaser for a novel in which context it would all make far more sense.
"It's Still the Same Old Story' by [a:Carrie Vaughn|8988|Carrie Vaughn|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1231952277p2/8988.jpg] features vampire Rick, from the Kitty Norville books. An old friend calls him needing his help, but by the time he gets to her, she's dead. Most of the story is told in flashback, with him remembering when he originally met the now-old-woman, when they were lovers for a time. The murder is no great mystery for very long. The story felt more rote than anything else, as if perhaps Vaughn wanted to humanize Rick a bit by showing that he had cared for this woman at one time. I didn't feel much of anything from it.
One of the more creative pieces, "The Lady is a Screamer" by [a:Conn Iggulden|119121|Conn Iggulden|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1235073163p2/119121.jpg], is told in first person by a con man turned ghostbuster. I didn't like it, precisely, and i certainly didn't like the narrator. It stands alone, though, and doesn't feel derivative at all, so that says something all by itself.
"Hellbender" by [a:Laurie R. King|6760|Laurie R. King|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1314242901p2/6760.jpg] is probably the only story that left me determined to hunt down more of the author's work. I would classify it as near-future science fiction, but it certainly fits in the noir detective genre as well. I have no hesitation giving this one story five out of five stars.
"Shadow Thieves" is a Garrett, P.I. story by [a:Glen Cook|13026|Glen Cook|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1207159752p2/13026.jpg]. That's another series I haven't read, but I believe this is the first time I've read a short story set in that world. I wouldn't mind reading the series if the novels are all light-hearted like this story. There was some darkness, obviously, or the piece wouldn't be in this anthology - but overall, there was humor.
[a:Melinda M. Snodgrass|725899|Melinda M. Snodgrass|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1271184595p2/725899.jpg]'; "No Mystery, No Miracle" is probably the most controversial story in the book if anybody is really paying attention. I found it intriguing and well-written.
"The Difference Between a Puzzle and a Mystery" by [a:M.L.N. Hanover|1868743|M.L.N. Hanover|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-M-50x66.jpg] takes us a big city, where an overworked cop is trying to get a confession out of a supposedly demon-possessed killer. He gets help from an unusual minister (Unitarian, we're told - not something that will thrill any UUs out there). I found this one of the most chilling stories in the book. Telling you why, however, would be a spoiler.
I would love to see a novel featuring the main characters of [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]'s "The Curious Affair of the Deodand" - a young woman in the Watson role and a young man as a Sherlock Holmes-type consulting detective. The young lady is every bit as vital to resolving the case as the man is, which is one of the things I enjoyed about the story. The resolution isn't as satisfying as it could be, though, which is one of the reasons I'd like to see the same characters in other circumstances.
"Lord John and the Plague of Zombies" by [a:Diana Gabaldon|3617|Diana Gabaldon|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1213918339p2/3617.jpg] is a Lord John Grey story. This is, I believe, the first thing I've read by Gabaldon. It wasn't bad and it wasn't earth-shakingly good. It was decently-plotted with predictable characters and a nice little twist at the end, so enjoyable to read. I won't avoid her work but I'm not burning to read more, either.
"Beware the Snake" is an SPQR story by [a:John Maddox Roberts|19522|John Maddox Roberts|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1285244765p2/19522.jpg]. Once again, I'm unfamiliar with the author and the series, but the story gave enough context for me to understand the setting and the characters, so that was all right. It was enjoyable, although I probably would have twigged to a couple of things more quickly were I more familiar with Roman naming customs.
[a:Patricia Briggs|40563|Patricia Briggs|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1228867484p2/40563.jpg]'; "In Red, With Pearls" is set in Mercedes Thompson's world but featuring werewolf Warren Smith and his lover Kyle. Kyle is set upon by a zombie assassin who is thwarted by Warren, but of course Warren wants to know who sent the zombie, why, and who made the zombie. It's a very good story, as I've come to expect from Briggs. I had a bit of a hard time keeping up with some of the secondary characters in the story, but then I was distracted at the time.
"The Adakian Eagle" by [a:Bradley Denton|198305|Bradley Denton|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1320697919p2/198305.jpg] is a Dashiell Hammett story - as in, Hammett is a character. That was interesting alone, but the story in general was well-told. Spare and hard, as befits one of the main characters.
All in all this is a collection that I can definitely recommend. There are very few clunkers are several excellent stories. [a:George R.R. Martin|346732|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1195658637p2/346732.jpg] and [a:Gardner R. Dozois|12052|Gardner R. Dozois|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1247758142p2/12052.jpg] did their jobs very well.
[a:Charlaine Harris|17061|Charlaine Harris|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1307925926p2/17061.jpg]'; "Death by Dahlia," set in the Sookie Stackhouse universe, is one of a series of stories about the vampire Dahlia Lynley-Chivers. Each story stands alone, but my enjoyment grows greater with each addition to her tales. I'd much rather see Dahlia as the main character of a novel than Sookie, to be honest. This story, set at the party for the ascension of a new vampire sherrif, was a little gem, and a nice start to the collection.
"The Bleeding Shadow" by [a:Joe R. Lansdale|58971|Joe R. Lansdale|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1200406474p2/58971.jpg] is grittier from start to finish, set in the south of black folks in the 1950s. A beautiful woman sends her sometime-suitor to find her brother, a blues musician who has gotten into music that isn't of this world. I couldn't be done with this one soon enough, as it gave me the willies. I have a feeling Lansdale would be happy that it stuck with me for a while.
[a:Simon R. Green|41942|Simon R. Green|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1224555729p2/41942.jpg]'s "Hungry Heart" takes us to the Nightside, where John Taylor is hired by a young witch to retrieve her stolen heart. I haven't read any of the Nightside novels, but this is probably the third or fourth short story I've read, and for some reason they never leave me wanting more. I don't hunger for the darkness, I guess. I will give Green points for creativity in evil henchmen, though.
"Styx and Stones" by [a:Steven Saylor|42919|Steven Saylor|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243268148p2/42919.jpg] takes a teenage version of his novel hero Gordianus on a world tour to see the Seven Wonders of the World, and this stop is Babylon. Gordianus and his companion, Antipater, find a murderous ghost in residence near their inn in addition to seeing the Ziggurat, the Gate of Ishtar, and what's left of the Hanging Gardens.
[a:S. M. Stirling|6448047|S. M. Stirling|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg]'s "Pain and Suffering" was unsatisfying to me. It opened with an ex-soldier's combat flashback twisted into something Other, then we learn that the ex-soldier is a cop. He and his partner spend a lot of time investigating an apparent arson and possibly-connected kidnapping. The flashbacks repeat. There's more, but I don't want to spoil the story. I just felt that there was a lot of build-up for very little payoff, and that perhaps this story was meant as a teaser for a novel in which context it would all make far more sense.
"It's Still the Same Old Story' by [a:Carrie Vaughn|8988|Carrie Vaughn|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1231952277p2/8988.jpg] features vampire Rick, from the Kitty Norville books. An old friend calls him needing his help, but by the time he gets to her, she's dead. Most of the story is told in flashback, with him remembering when he originally met the now-old-woman, when they were lovers for a time. The murder is no great mystery for very long. The story felt more rote than anything else, as if perhaps Vaughn wanted to humanize Rick a bit by showing that he had cared for this woman at one time. I didn't feel much of anything from it.
One of the more creative pieces, "The Lady is a Screamer" by [a:Conn Iggulden|119121|Conn Iggulden|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1235073163p2/119121.jpg], is told in first person by a con man turned ghostbuster. I didn't like it, precisely, and i certainly didn't like the narrator. It stands alone, though, and doesn't feel derivative at all, so that says something all by itself.
"Hellbender" by [a:Laurie R. King|6760|Laurie R. King|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1314242901p2/6760.jpg] is probably the only story that left me determined to hunt down more of the author's work. I would classify it as near-future science fiction, but it certainly fits in the noir detective genre as well. I have no hesitation giving this one story five out of five stars.
"Shadow Thieves" is a Garrett, P.I. story by [a:Glen Cook|13026|Glen Cook|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1207159752p2/13026.jpg]. That's another series I haven't read, but I believe this is the first time I've read a short story set in that world. I wouldn't mind reading the series if the novels are all light-hearted like this story. There was some darkness, obviously, or the piece wouldn't be in this anthology - but overall, there was humor.
[a:Melinda M. Snodgrass|725899|Melinda M. Snodgrass|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1271184595p2/725899.jpg]'; "No Mystery, No Miracle" is probably the most controversial story in the book if anybody is really paying attention. I found it intriguing and well-written.
"The Difference Between a Puzzle and a Mystery" by [a:M.L.N. Hanover|1868743|M.L.N. Hanover|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-M-50x66.jpg] takes us a big city, where an overworked cop is trying to get a confession out of a supposedly demon-possessed killer. He gets help from an unusual minister (Unitarian, we're told - not something that will thrill any UUs out there). I found this one of the most chilling stories in the book. Telling you why, however, would be a spoiler.
I would love to see a novel featuring the main characters of [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]'s "The Curious Affair of the Deodand" - a young woman in the Watson role and a young man as a Sherlock Holmes-type consulting detective. The young lady is every bit as vital to resolving the case as the man is, which is one of the things I enjoyed about the story. The resolution isn't as satisfying as it could be, though, which is one of the reasons I'd like to see the same characters in other circumstances.
"Lord John and the Plague of Zombies" by [a:Diana Gabaldon|3617|Diana Gabaldon|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1213918339p2/3617.jpg] is a Lord John Grey story. This is, I believe, the first thing I've read by Gabaldon. It wasn't bad and it wasn't earth-shakingly good. It was decently-plotted with predictable characters and a nice little twist at the end, so enjoyable to read. I won't avoid her work but I'm not burning to read more, either.
"Beware the Snake" is an SPQR story by [a:John Maddox Roberts|19522|John Maddox Roberts|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1285244765p2/19522.jpg]. Once again, I'm unfamiliar with the author and the series, but the story gave enough context for me to understand the setting and the characters, so that was all right. It was enjoyable, although I probably would have twigged to a couple of things more quickly were I more familiar with Roman naming customs.
[a:Patricia Briggs|40563|Patricia Briggs|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1228867484p2/40563.jpg]'; "In Red, With Pearls" is set in Mercedes Thompson's world but featuring werewolf Warren Smith and his lover Kyle. Kyle is set upon by a zombie assassin who is thwarted by Warren, but of course Warren wants to know who sent the zombie, why, and who made the zombie. It's a very good story, as I've come to expect from Briggs. I had a bit of a hard time keeping up with some of the secondary characters in the story, but then I was distracted at the time.
"The Adakian Eagle" by [a:Bradley Denton|198305|Bradley Denton|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1320697919p2/198305.jpg] is a Dashiell Hammett story - as in, Hammett is a character. That was interesting alone, but the story in general was well-told. Spare and hard, as befits one of the main characters.
All in all this is a collection that I can definitely recommend. There are very few clunkers are several excellent stories. [a:George R.R. Martin|346732|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1195658637p2/346732.jpg] and [a:Gardner R. Dozois|12052|Gardner R. Dozois|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1247758142p2/12052.jpg] did their jobs very well.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Initially when a franchise reboots a series not five years from its last installment this can often be seen as a sign that they’ve run out of ideas. It was reportedly the inability to find a suitable script that drove director-producer Sam Raimi and the stars of the Spider-man series away from a possible fourth outing and forced Sony/Columbia start fresh.
Selecting the relatively new Marc Webb who, outside of “500 Days of Summer”, had worked on music videos and most recently directed episode of The Office and the pilot for Lone Star, seemed like a very odd choice to turn over the billion-dollar franchise. The selection of American-born English actor Andrew Garfield also seemed to be an interesting choice to don the tights of the wall crawler.
Thankfully this is exactly the fresh start that the series needed. Even though I went into the film with guarded and reserved expectations I must say that I’m absolutely delighted with how the final product came out as this is a very fresh and faithful adaptation of the beloved comic book character that, in my opinion is the best adaptation to date on film.
The screenplay by James Vanderbilt was based on a story credited to three other writers all of whom clearly understand the character and the source material and are focused first and foremost with being respectful to it rather than putting their own unique stamp and take on the franchise.
The film does take a little bit of liberty by showing Peter Parker’s parents as they place young Peter in the custody of Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Fields) as they flee into a rainy night from implied danger, never to be seen again.
The film continues with teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), plodding his way through high school. As brilliant as Peter is academically, he is extremely awkward around girls especially the lovely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who never fails to catch his eye. When a clue from his father’s past arises, Peter finds himself at Oscorp where Gwen works as an intern. Peter also finds himself on the radar of his dad’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who becomes intrigued by young Peter’s scientific theories and even more so in his abilities when he learns that he is the offspring of his former partner.
Dr. Connors is working on cross species genetics and hopes that not only will it someday replaces missing arm, but will also pave a bold new direction for humanity. During a visit to the lab Peter, is bitten by a radioactive spider, and as any fan of the series knows, begins to exhibit amazing strength, agility, and perception, as well as the ability to walk on walls and cling to ceilings. In a very refreshing return to form, Peter fashions his famous web slingers rather than have them be organic as the previous film series did.
When a twist of fate puts Peter on the path of vengeance, he becomes a masked vigilante who uses his newfound abilities to rid New York some of its less pleasant citizens. These activities do not sit well with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who also happens to be Gwen’s father. As Peter and Gwen become closer, the duality of hiding his new identity from Capt. Stacy and Aunt May becomes even more imperative.
Naturally, it would not be much of a superhero film without a super villain, and Dr. Connors is more than willing to step up to this. Faced with pressure from his bosses he decides to use an experimental serum on himself. At first he is delighted as he seems to regrow his lost limb, but then in a Jekyll & Hyde-like transformation he transforms into a gigantic lizard creature bent on revenge and destruction as he attempts to complete a plan that will devastate millions of New York citizens.
Since Peter helped provide the equation that led to the formula that transform Dr. Connors, he feels obligated to stop the raging creature and to save his mentor no matter the cost. What follows are some truly spectacular action sequences including sewer battles in an extremely memorable finale across the Manhattan skyline.
While the film did take its time getting started as it established its back story and introduced the characters, once it got rolling it was an extremely fun and exhilarating ride. Garfield and Stone have a very good chemistry with one another and the reports of them recently dating off screen further solidifies their on-screen bond. Garfield wonderfully captures the conflicted emotions of Peter Parker as well as the brilliantly awkward genius that he is.
He runs the gamut of emotions from showing his anger and frustration to the dopey awkwardness of his interactions with Gwen and very believable manner. When he becomes infused with his new abilities you can almost share the glee that he has as he swings and flips around the landscape. The sheltered, socially awkward young man disappears when he dons the mask. He’s free to let himself go and Garfield does this with a childlike delight as well as the trademark quips and wisecracks that made the character such a beloved icon.
Garfield handles the physical duties of the role quite well and shines both in and out of the costume. I thought Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job bringing the character to life previously, but in my opinion Garfield has captured the essence of Peter Parker/ Spider-man and made it his own with a truly wonderful performance all around.
Stone does a great job as the love interest in the film as she is more than just eye candy and the typical damsel in distress far too common with this type of film. She challenges Peter and you can see some gleeful delight in her eyes when Peter awkwardly stumbles around her in an attempt to ask her out. Because she clearly enjoys the situation Gwen is not about to make it any easier on Peter, even though she’s been waiting for him to muster the courage for ages. She’s a strong and determined woman who gives a good range of emotions in her scenes and complements Garfield exceptionally well.
The supporting cast was very good especially Leary and Fields and Ifans does a good job as the quietly restrained Connors. In what could’ve easily been a scenery chewing, over-the-top Machiavellian bad guy, Ifans portrays Connors as a very sympathetic and understandable figure. He is a scientist first and foremost who is trying to do what he believes is right. He is not suited for the political machinations of a large corporation and when he begins this transformation and the animal side takes over there is still a hint of humanity amongst all the CGI work for the re-imagined Lizard.
While it did take me a while to get used to the look of The Lizard having become accustomed to his portrayal in comics and cartoons, I have to say it was a good updating it still stayed faithful to the essence of the original character.
Webb wisely decided to shoot in 3-D and not do a post filming conversion. It is the visually captivating and at times stunning cinema photography that really sets the tone for the film. You can truly get an idea of what it is like to be Spider-man as he swings and flips through the city and the point of view shots of his web firing out to latch onto objects and take down opponents are a lot of fun. Webb clearly knows the subject matter and gets the most out of his very talented cast and tells a very entertaining yet human action story and lets the effects support the film rather than carry it.
The film was much better than “Spider-man 3”. I am so happy that the franchise is in good hands and is moving forward in the right direction. Although the movie did take a while to get up to speed once it got rolling I did not want it to end, and I commented to my wife that I don’t want to have to wait 2 to 3 years for the next installment of the film I’m ready for more now. As a lifelong fan of comic I can honestly say I am beyond delighted with the new film, cast, director, and direction for the series.
Selecting the relatively new Marc Webb who, outside of “500 Days of Summer”, had worked on music videos and most recently directed episode of The Office and the pilot for Lone Star, seemed like a very odd choice to turn over the billion-dollar franchise. The selection of American-born English actor Andrew Garfield also seemed to be an interesting choice to don the tights of the wall crawler.
Thankfully this is exactly the fresh start that the series needed. Even though I went into the film with guarded and reserved expectations I must say that I’m absolutely delighted with how the final product came out as this is a very fresh and faithful adaptation of the beloved comic book character that, in my opinion is the best adaptation to date on film.
The screenplay by James Vanderbilt was based on a story credited to three other writers all of whom clearly understand the character and the source material and are focused first and foremost with being respectful to it rather than putting their own unique stamp and take on the franchise.
The film does take a little bit of liberty by showing Peter Parker’s parents as they place young Peter in the custody of Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Fields) as they flee into a rainy night from implied danger, never to be seen again.
The film continues with teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), plodding his way through high school. As brilliant as Peter is academically, he is extremely awkward around girls especially the lovely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who never fails to catch his eye. When a clue from his father’s past arises, Peter finds himself at Oscorp where Gwen works as an intern. Peter also finds himself on the radar of his dad’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who becomes intrigued by young Peter’s scientific theories and even more so in his abilities when he learns that he is the offspring of his former partner.
Dr. Connors is working on cross species genetics and hopes that not only will it someday replaces missing arm, but will also pave a bold new direction for humanity. During a visit to the lab Peter, is bitten by a radioactive spider, and as any fan of the series knows, begins to exhibit amazing strength, agility, and perception, as well as the ability to walk on walls and cling to ceilings. In a very refreshing return to form, Peter fashions his famous web slingers rather than have them be organic as the previous film series did.
When a twist of fate puts Peter on the path of vengeance, he becomes a masked vigilante who uses his newfound abilities to rid New York some of its less pleasant citizens. These activities do not sit well with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who also happens to be Gwen’s father. As Peter and Gwen become closer, the duality of hiding his new identity from Capt. Stacy and Aunt May becomes even more imperative.
Naturally, it would not be much of a superhero film without a super villain, and Dr. Connors is more than willing to step up to this. Faced with pressure from his bosses he decides to use an experimental serum on himself. At first he is delighted as he seems to regrow his lost limb, but then in a Jekyll & Hyde-like transformation he transforms into a gigantic lizard creature bent on revenge and destruction as he attempts to complete a plan that will devastate millions of New York citizens.
Since Peter helped provide the equation that led to the formula that transform Dr. Connors, he feels obligated to stop the raging creature and to save his mentor no matter the cost. What follows are some truly spectacular action sequences including sewer battles in an extremely memorable finale across the Manhattan skyline.
While the film did take its time getting started as it established its back story and introduced the characters, once it got rolling it was an extremely fun and exhilarating ride. Garfield and Stone have a very good chemistry with one another and the reports of them recently dating off screen further solidifies their on-screen bond. Garfield wonderfully captures the conflicted emotions of Peter Parker as well as the brilliantly awkward genius that he is.
He runs the gamut of emotions from showing his anger and frustration to the dopey awkwardness of his interactions with Gwen and very believable manner. When he becomes infused with his new abilities you can almost share the glee that he has as he swings and flips around the landscape. The sheltered, socially awkward young man disappears when he dons the mask. He’s free to let himself go and Garfield does this with a childlike delight as well as the trademark quips and wisecracks that made the character such a beloved icon.
Garfield handles the physical duties of the role quite well and shines both in and out of the costume. I thought Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job bringing the character to life previously, but in my opinion Garfield has captured the essence of Peter Parker/ Spider-man and made it his own with a truly wonderful performance all around.
Stone does a great job as the love interest in the film as she is more than just eye candy and the typical damsel in distress far too common with this type of film. She challenges Peter and you can see some gleeful delight in her eyes when Peter awkwardly stumbles around her in an attempt to ask her out. Because she clearly enjoys the situation Gwen is not about to make it any easier on Peter, even though she’s been waiting for him to muster the courage for ages. She’s a strong and determined woman who gives a good range of emotions in her scenes and complements Garfield exceptionally well.
The supporting cast was very good especially Leary and Fields and Ifans does a good job as the quietly restrained Connors. In what could’ve easily been a scenery chewing, over-the-top Machiavellian bad guy, Ifans portrays Connors as a very sympathetic and understandable figure. He is a scientist first and foremost who is trying to do what he believes is right. He is not suited for the political machinations of a large corporation and when he begins this transformation and the animal side takes over there is still a hint of humanity amongst all the CGI work for the re-imagined Lizard.
While it did take me a while to get used to the look of The Lizard having become accustomed to his portrayal in comics and cartoons, I have to say it was a good updating it still stayed faithful to the essence of the original character.
Webb wisely decided to shoot in 3-D and not do a post filming conversion. It is the visually captivating and at times stunning cinema photography that really sets the tone for the film. You can truly get an idea of what it is like to be Spider-man as he swings and flips through the city and the point of view shots of his web firing out to latch onto objects and take down opponents are a lot of fun. Webb clearly knows the subject matter and gets the most out of his very talented cast and tells a very entertaining yet human action story and lets the effects support the film rather than carry it.
The film was much better than “Spider-man 3”. I am so happy that the franchise is in good hands and is moving forward in the right direction. Although the movie did take a while to get up to speed once it got rolling I did not want it to end, and I commented to my wife that I don’t want to have to wait 2 to 3 years for the next installment of the film I’m ready for more now. As a lifelong fan of comic I can honestly say I am beyond delighted with the new film, cast, director, and direction for the series.