Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Adrift (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hurricane Raymond has been upgraded to a category 5”
“Should we be worried” says Tami. Well, yes dear, you really should.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alone in Berlin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Small Rebellions.
Once again, World War II turns up another true story of quiet valour to turn into a motion picture. At a time when Trump is pontificating about so called “fake news”, here is a timely tale from history which centres on the battle against genuinely fake news: the Nazi propaganda machine.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Accountant (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Rain Man with a Kalashnikov.
(Another Bob the Movie Man Showcase Theatre).
The scene: studio execs in a board room in Warner Brothers. Greg Silverman, head of Creative Development walks into the room full of his most creative guys and slams a script by Bill Dubuque onto the table.
Silverman: “Affleck needs a real zinger of a film to follow his Batman work and this is it… but we we need a really riveting title… something to grab everyone’s attention and get them begging to pay their ticket money to see. Hit me!”
Creative 1: “The Autist?”
Silverman: “Like your thinking…. good Oscar associations… but perhaps a tad non-PC.”
Creative 2: “Under the Skin?”
Silverman: “Been done. Besides, don’t want everyone thinking they’re going to see THAT much of Johansson again”
A grey looking financial director, sitting in the corner: “Er… sir… I’ve got an idea….”
=====
So… it’s not the most PR-friendly title in the world, but it is a whole lot more interesting than it sounds. Ben Affleck plays the titular accountant (who may or may not be called Christian Wolff) – a sort of evil Jack Reacher of the financial world: off-the-grid behind multiple aliases and with financial fingers in more murky pies around the world than seems tasteful.
Not only is he a mathematical genius with the numbers, but is also extremely handy with his fists and an arsenal of high powered weaponry he keeps in his executive trailer home… ready to up-roots and disappear at any time.
Supported over the phone by a mysterious ‘Pepper-Potts-style’ personal assistant, who appears more machine than person, Affleck is guided from job to job, dropping in the occasional “normal” job to keep the authorities off his tail. One of these is for a bio-technology company headed up by Lamar Black (John Lithgow) who brings him in – against the wishes of his FD and long term friend Ed Chilton (Andy Umberger) – since all appears not quite right in the books. Junior accountant Dana Cummings (Anna “Pitch Perfect” Kendrick) is the young lady who has seen the discrepancy but can’t track it down in the labyrinthine accounts.
This so called ‘safe’ job lands both him and Dana in extreme danger as person or persons unknown, fronted by a hired ‘heavy’ played by Jon Bernthal, try to prevent some dodgy activities coming to the surface.
As a parallel thread, the head of the Treasury Department’s Crime Enforcement Division, Ray King (J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”) strong-arms (for no readily apparent reason) analyst Marybeth Medina (an impressive Cynthia Addai-Robinson) into pursuing Wolff. With a keen intellect and a strong incentive she begins to close in.
Directed by Gavin O’ Connor, this – for me – is a frustratingly inconsistent film. When it flies, it really flies well, both at an action level and at a dramatic level. The flashback scenes to Wolff’s childhood are well done, showing how the autistic and needy youngster who needed compassion, quiet and understanding got the exact opposite from his militaristic father (Robert C Treveiler) to ‘jolt him out of’ his condition. It is easy to understand how he turned out the way he did.
On the flip side, the plot progression almost deliberately shines a spotlight on some questions (no spoilers) that if you ask them you immediately see the answers, resulting in most of the rest of the plot falling into place without shock or surprise. There was only one genuine twist for me, right at the end of the film, that I didn’t see coming.
The script by Bill Dubuque (“The Judge”) delivers some really nice scenes between Affleck and Kendrick, some smart (and genuinely funny) one-liners and one of the best abruptly ended speeches since Samuel L. Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”. However, the whole Treasury Investigation story-line (however good it is to see J.K. Simmons act) is somewhat superfluous to the whole thing and just doesn’t work.
Kendrick and Affleck have good chemistry, with Affleck trying desperately to breathe some likeability into what is a pretty cold and calculating character. It’s hard though to empathise with someone who – albeit indirectly – is the source of such misery around the world through drugs, terrorism, dictatorships and God-knows what else. Kendrick plays kooky and naive really well, but she really ought to get some protocols sorted out around letting people into her apartment: she really doesn’t seem to learn!
It’s a nice idea and entertaining to watch, but the delivery is flawed.
The scene: studio execs in a board room in Warner Brothers. Greg Silverman, head of Creative Development walks into the room full of his most creative guys and slams a script by Bill Dubuque onto the table.
Silverman: “Affleck needs a real zinger of a film to follow his Batman work and this is it… but we we need a really riveting title… something to grab everyone’s attention and get them begging to pay their ticket money to see. Hit me!”
Creative 1: “The Autist?”
Silverman: “Like your thinking…. good Oscar associations… but perhaps a tad non-PC.”
Creative 2: “Under the Skin?”
Silverman: “Been done. Besides, don’t want everyone thinking they’re going to see THAT much of Johansson again”
A grey looking financial director, sitting in the corner: “Er… sir… I’ve got an idea….”
=====
So… it’s not the most PR-friendly title in the world, but it is a whole lot more interesting than it sounds. Ben Affleck plays the titular accountant (who may or may not be called Christian Wolff) – a sort of evil Jack Reacher of the financial world: off-the-grid behind multiple aliases and with financial fingers in more murky pies around the world than seems tasteful.
Not only is he a mathematical genius with the numbers, but is also extremely handy with his fists and an arsenal of high powered weaponry he keeps in his executive trailer home… ready to up-roots and disappear at any time.
Supported over the phone by a mysterious ‘Pepper-Potts-style’ personal assistant, who appears more machine than person, Affleck is guided from job to job, dropping in the occasional “normal” job to keep the authorities off his tail. One of these is for a bio-technology company headed up by Lamar Black (John Lithgow) who brings him in – against the wishes of his FD and long term friend Ed Chilton (Andy Umberger) – since all appears not quite right in the books. Junior accountant Dana Cummings (Anna “Pitch Perfect” Kendrick) is the young lady who has seen the discrepancy but can’t track it down in the labyrinthine accounts.
This so called ‘safe’ job lands both him and Dana in extreme danger as person or persons unknown, fronted by a hired ‘heavy’ played by Jon Bernthal, try to prevent some dodgy activities coming to the surface.
As a parallel thread, the head of the Treasury Department’s Crime Enforcement Division, Ray King (J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”) strong-arms (for no readily apparent reason) analyst Marybeth Medina (an impressive Cynthia Addai-Robinson) into pursuing Wolff. With a keen intellect and a strong incentive she begins to close in.
Directed by Gavin O’ Connor, this – for me – is a frustratingly inconsistent film. When it flies, it really flies well, both at an action level and at a dramatic level. The flashback scenes to Wolff’s childhood are well done, showing how the autistic and needy youngster who needed compassion, quiet and understanding got the exact opposite from his militaristic father (Robert C Treveiler) to ‘jolt him out of’ his condition. It is easy to understand how he turned out the way he did.
On the flip side, the plot progression almost deliberately shines a spotlight on some questions (no spoilers) that if you ask them you immediately see the answers, resulting in most of the rest of the plot falling into place without shock or surprise. There was only one genuine twist for me, right at the end of the film, that I didn’t see coming.
The script by Bill Dubuque (“The Judge”) delivers some really nice scenes between Affleck and Kendrick, some smart (and genuinely funny) one-liners and one of the best abruptly ended speeches since Samuel L. Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”. However, the whole Treasury Investigation story-line (however good it is to see J.K. Simmons act) is somewhat superfluous to the whole thing and just doesn’t work.
Kendrick and Affleck have good chemistry, with Affleck trying desperately to breathe some likeability into what is a pretty cold and calculating character. It’s hard though to empathise with someone who – albeit indirectly – is the source of such misery around the world through drugs, terrorism, dictatorships and God-knows what else. Kendrick plays kooky and naive really well, but she really ought to get some protocols sorted out around letting people into her apartment: she really doesn’t seem to learn!
It’s a nice idea and entertaining to watch, but the delivery is flawed.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Promenade (The Dark Nocturne #3) in Books
Aug 30, 2022
After reading and loving the first two books in the Dark Nocturne series by Morgan Shamy, Serenade and Etude, I jumped right into reading the final book in the trilogy, Promenade. Promenade was the best book in the series which is saying a lot since I loved the first two! I was just sad that the trilogy was ending.
In Promenade, November and Vincent are in two separate eras in time. After an attack on November's life that lives others she cares about dead, she enlists the help of the Fae to help her get back in time to help stop Vincent's death in the present time. However, there's the shadow wraith that keeps coming after her to send her back to her time. November must convince Vincent, who's a totally different person than his present self, to somehow change the future to prevent his death in her time. However, things don't go as planned. More lives are lost, and November's plan is left in shambles.
I very much loved the plot of Promenade! I was hooked right from the start. Yes, the first two books in the series are fantastic, but Promenade really blew me away! There's so much action and adventure packed in each and every page throughout this book. It's hard not to get sucked right back into November's world. There was a few time where the pacing took off without me, and I was left confused, but that was not very often. Other than those few times, the pacing was perfect, and I found myself fully immersed in the story. I loved the setting of early 20th century London, England. With Shamy's great descriptions of everything that was around, I was easily transported back with November. It was easy to imagine everything going on around November. The world building was so good! The time travel aspect was written superbly, and it was done in a way that wasn't extremely confusing. In Promenade, we still had some mentions of blood walkers, shifters, and witches, but now November was also dealing with the Fae, the Shadow Fae, and a shadow wraith. I loved all the new types of fantasy beings in this book. There were a few plot twist throughout the book, and I loved how the whole trilogy was tied up nicely by the end of the book.
Where do I start with the characters in Promenade? Just like in the previous two books in the trilogy, Shamy does an amazing job at breathing life into each and every one of her characters no matter how big or small of a role they play. November redeemed herself in Promenade after annoying me in Etude. I admired her love and strong bond with Vincent. I loved how she'd risk everything just to try to make sure he and her friends would be alright (even if it would sometimes have the opposite effect). The depth of November's emotions felt very realistic, and I felt myself having the same feelings as November. I enjoyed reading about the Vincent of 1901. He was much different from the present day Vincent, and it was interesting to read how different they were. I liked how we got to know Quincey a little better in this book as well. I enjoyed learning more about him. Cam was also heavily featured, and I was thrilled! I've always had a soft spot for Cam after the first book in the trilogy when he turns over a new leaf. We are also introduced to the characters of Rowan and Hazel. Although they weren't featured a lot, they were still awesome characters. We also get to meet Vincent's father. Let's just say he is definitely a piece of work! Shamy does a fantastic job of making us kind of sympathize with him for wanting to protect his land and people but at the same time, hating him for what he's done to the people he thinks disobey him.
Trigger warnings for Promenade include murder, attempted murder, torture, violence, and blackmail.
Overall, Promenade is one of the best books I've read in awhile. With it's exciting plot and well developed characters, you'd be hard pressed not to like this book. I would definitely recommend Promenade by Morgan Shamy to those aged 14+ who are willing to stay up all night to finish a book due to how great it is!
In Promenade, November and Vincent are in two separate eras in time. After an attack on November's life that lives others she cares about dead, she enlists the help of the Fae to help her get back in time to help stop Vincent's death in the present time. However, there's the shadow wraith that keeps coming after her to send her back to her time. November must convince Vincent, who's a totally different person than his present self, to somehow change the future to prevent his death in her time. However, things don't go as planned. More lives are lost, and November's plan is left in shambles.
I very much loved the plot of Promenade! I was hooked right from the start. Yes, the first two books in the series are fantastic, but Promenade really blew me away! There's so much action and adventure packed in each and every page throughout this book. It's hard not to get sucked right back into November's world. There was a few time where the pacing took off without me, and I was left confused, but that was not very often. Other than those few times, the pacing was perfect, and I found myself fully immersed in the story. I loved the setting of early 20th century London, England. With Shamy's great descriptions of everything that was around, I was easily transported back with November. It was easy to imagine everything going on around November. The world building was so good! The time travel aspect was written superbly, and it was done in a way that wasn't extremely confusing. In Promenade, we still had some mentions of blood walkers, shifters, and witches, but now November was also dealing with the Fae, the Shadow Fae, and a shadow wraith. I loved all the new types of fantasy beings in this book. There were a few plot twist throughout the book, and I loved how the whole trilogy was tied up nicely by the end of the book.
Where do I start with the characters in Promenade? Just like in the previous two books in the trilogy, Shamy does an amazing job at breathing life into each and every one of her characters no matter how big or small of a role they play. November redeemed herself in Promenade after annoying me in Etude. I admired her love and strong bond with Vincent. I loved how she'd risk everything just to try to make sure he and her friends would be alright (even if it would sometimes have the opposite effect). The depth of November's emotions felt very realistic, and I felt myself having the same feelings as November. I enjoyed reading about the Vincent of 1901. He was much different from the present day Vincent, and it was interesting to read how different they were. I liked how we got to know Quincey a little better in this book as well. I enjoyed learning more about him. Cam was also heavily featured, and I was thrilled! I've always had a soft spot for Cam after the first book in the trilogy when he turns over a new leaf. We are also introduced to the characters of Rowan and Hazel. Although they weren't featured a lot, they were still awesome characters. We also get to meet Vincent's father. Let's just say he is definitely a piece of work! Shamy does a fantastic job of making us kind of sympathize with him for wanting to protect his land and people but at the same time, hating him for what he's done to the people he thinks disobey him.
Trigger warnings for Promenade include murder, attempted murder, torture, violence, and blackmail.
Overall, Promenade is one of the best books I've read in awhile. With it's exciting plot and well developed characters, you'd be hard pressed not to like this book. I would definitely recommend Promenade by Morgan Shamy to those aged 14+ who are willing to stay up all night to finish a book due to how great it is!
I tried to avoid much about this before seeing it and despite the internet being what it is I somehow managed to avoid spoilers.
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Collector in Books
May 4, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Whenever you move to a small town, there is always a hidden secret. When one of those secrets is children going missing, it makes for a great horror story. But 'the Collector' makes for an okay one,with most of its twist and turns being highly predictable.
Josie, the main character of 'the Collector,' has just been uprooted from Chicago with her younger sister, Anna, after their single mother just lost her job. They move in with their ailing grandmother in a small town far away, where she warns the girls to never enter the woods that surround her house. Very early in the book (literally within the first ten pages), Josie and Anna hear a voice coming from the forbidden woods, calling out their names. This isn't the best horror book I've ever read, but it has its quirks.
The reader gets to follow Josie through the story, from her time at a new school to nightmare fueled dreams. She watches her mother take care of her grandmother, who has Alzheimer's, but the grandmother constantly speaks of someone named Beryl, and how this woman knows and wants Josie and Anna. Fortunately, Josie meets a girl at her new school named Vanessa, who becomes a quick friend. Josie speaks about the woods around her grandmother's house, and how she and her sister weren't allowed to enter them, but Vanessa believes there's nothing to worry about: " 'There's nothing to be scared of in the woods,' she said. Her voice sounded different. Flat. Like she was reciting a line from a story she'd read, but didn't believe. 'It's just trees and animals.' "
Josie and Anna soon go over to Vanessa's house, where she lives with her aunt. Little did they know that the house was the one in the forbidden woods that their grandmother warned them about. Josie ignores the rule and enters the home; inside, they are met with a hoarding collection of porcelain dolls, lining the walls and the floors of the entire house. Although Josie has had dreams about this house before even meeting Vanessa, including a life-size doll that answered the door(which she later states looked just like Vanessa), she didn't put the easily accessible puzzle pieces together.
Ignoring the obvious, Josie invites Vanessa over for a sleep-over, where we witness Josie's grandmother instantly recognizing her friend. Vanessa quickly leaves, taking off into the woods towards her home without giving an excuse or getting her overnight bag. When Josie asks her grandmother how she knew Vanessa, her grandmother replies: " 'Beryl is coming!'... 'You've brought her in here. I can't protect you. Not anymore.' "
Josie becomes angry and decides to confront her friend, Vanessa, and find out why she left the way that she did. When she reaches Vanessa's house in the woods, she can hear her crying,but there's another voice - a voice from Josie's dreams of none other than Beryl! Josie overhears Beryl demanding that Vanessa bring her another child for her collection.
Anyone who ever enjoyed R.L. Stine's 'Goosebumps' or 'Fear Street' series will enjoy this book. The story follows the basics of all young adult horror books: one pre-teen/teen experiences something supernatural, and no one believes them, so they are left to fend off the threat by themselves. But this one leaves out the teen drama of a blossoming romance with a boy-crazy girl, instead focusing on an older sister's love for her sibling. "I felt I should apologize to her before dinner. I should try and show her that I was sorry by offering to bring her food or something. I had to protect her, and that meant she had to trust me again."
One aspect that was needed was character development - there is such a lack of backstory that the reader can't bring themselves to care about any of the characters. Alexander keeps the story going with no lulls of teen life, but very little human interaction. Josie spends a lot of time with her younger sister, Anna, but the interactions are quick and seem unimportant.
'The Collector' is good for a quick read with a few scares here and there. I would recommend this book for pre-teens that are interested in horror genre books, but not wanting to deal with the nightmares that horror books for an older generation might bring. Although the ending of the book seemed rush, with a quick death of our villain by the hands of Josie, we are left with an opening for a possible sequel: "Slowly, I opened my eyes, tried to make my vision adjuts. I couldn't believe what I saw. There was a doll on my nightstand. A doll that looked an awful lot like Beryl. " It ends like most horror movies end, but was it good enough for a sequel? I don't think so.
Josie, the main character of 'the Collector,' has just been uprooted from Chicago with her younger sister, Anna, after their single mother just lost her job. They move in with their ailing grandmother in a small town far away, where she warns the girls to never enter the woods that surround her house. Very early in the book (literally within the first ten pages), Josie and Anna hear a voice coming from the forbidden woods, calling out their names. This isn't the best horror book I've ever read, but it has its quirks.
The reader gets to follow Josie through the story, from her time at a new school to nightmare fueled dreams. She watches her mother take care of her grandmother, who has Alzheimer's, but the grandmother constantly speaks of someone named Beryl, and how this woman knows and wants Josie and Anna. Fortunately, Josie meets a girl at her new school named Vanessa, who becomes a quick friend. Josie speaks about the woods around her grandmother's house, and how she and her sister weren't allowed to enter them, but Vanessa believes there's nothing to worry about: " 'There's nothing to be scared of in the woods,' she said. Her voice sounded different. Flat. Like she was reciting a line from a story she'd read, but didn't believe. 'It's just trees and animals.' "
Josie and Anna soon go over to Vanessa's house, where she lives with her aunt. Little did they know that the house was the one in the forbidden woods that their grandmother warned them about. Josie ignores the rule and enters the home; inside, they are met with a hoarding collection of porcelain dolls, lining the walls and the floors of the entire house. Although Josie has had dreams about this house before even meeting Vanessa, including a life-size doll that answered the door(which she later states looked just like Vanessa), she didn't put the easily accessible puzzle pieces together.
Ignoring the obvious, Josie invites Vanessa over for a sleep-over, where we witness Josie's grandmother instantly recognizing her friend. Vanessa quickly leaves, taking off into the woods towards her home without giving an excuse or getting her overnight bag. When Josie asks her grandmother how she knew Vanessa, her grandmother replies: " 'Beryl is coming!'... 'You've brought her in here. I can't protect you. Not anymore.' "
Josie becomes angry and decides to confront her friend, Vanessa, and find out why she left the way that she did. When she reaches Vanessa's house in the woods, she can hear her crying,but there's another voice - a voice from Josie's dreams of none other than Beryl! Josie overhears Beryl demanding that Vanessa bring her another child for her collection.
Anyone who ever enjoyed R.L. Stine's 'Goosebumps' or 'Fear Street' series will enjoy this book. The story follows the basics of all young adult horror books: one pre-teen/teen experiences something supernatural, and no one believes them, so they are left to fend off the threat by themselves. But this one leaves out the teen drama of a blossoming romance with a boy-crazy girl, instead focusing on an older sister's love for her sibling. "I felt I should apologize to her before dinner. I should try and show her that I was sorry by offering to bring her food or something. I had to protect her, and that meant she had to trust me again."
One aspect that was needed was character development - there is such a lack of backstory that the reader can't bring themselves to care about any of the characters. Alexander keeps the story going with no lulls of teen life, but very little human interaction. Josie spends a lot of time with her younger sister, Anna, but the interactions are quick and seem unimportant.
'The Collector' is good for a quick read with a few scares here and there. I would recommend this book for pre-teens that are interested in horror genre books, but not wanting to deal with the nightmares that horror books for an older generation might bring. Although the ending of the book seemed rush, with a quick death of our villain by the hands of Josie, we are left with an opening for a possible sequel: "Slowly, I opened my eyes, tried to make my vision adjuts. I couldn't believe what I saw. There was a doll on my nightstand. A doll that looked an awful lot like Beryl. " It ends like most horror movies end, but was it good enough for a sequel? I don't think so.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Mystic Vale in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
The Land needs you, Druid! It is plagued, barren, in need of revitalization and only your Circle can cure it and bring vivacity back to our home. Earn as many VP crystal shards as you can to defeat the other Druids and re-beautify us!
DISCLAIMER: This review focuses on vanilla Mystic Vale. We have most of the expansions in our collections, and we may do reviews on them and how they change the experience. If we do, we will either update this review or link to the expansion reviews here. -T
Okay, so the last part of my intro doesn’t quite make thematic sense, but this is a competitive game. A really good competitive game where there really isn’t a ton of direct player interaction, so if you enjoy merely messing with your opponents’ plans and just seeming like an annoying bee sting, read on.
I will also get this out of the way early: this is my first Card Crafting Game and the first of its type (that I know of, anyway). The concept is explained in the next paragraph. There are now others, but this is the grand-daddy. I was skeptical at first and was late to hop on the bandwagon here, but when I did I was really blown away. You have your own deck of cards that is exactly the same as your opponents’ decks, with a different colored back. Throw those cards into the provided clear sleeves, set up the other decks from which you will be purchasing upgrade cards, and you are setup.
The game mechanics are familiar, where you are pushing your luck to flip over cards from your deck to create a hand of cards… or bust and do nothing. Using the symbols on these cards allows you purchase cards from the current offering grid. Once you have purchased your new card(s) you must put them in the sleeves along with your starting cards to improve those starting cards! How can we do this, you ask? THE CARDS ARE SEE-THROUGH PLASTIC CARDS. Some starting cards are completely blank, and so adding to them drastically increases their value. This is a twist on the old deck building mechanic where you are no longer adding cards to make your deck more plentiful, but you are improving the sleeved cards you already have.
The art on the cards you are purchasing from the offer are printed in a way where information is split into three areas – top, middle, and bottom. So, you may have a starting card that gives you one icon worth of purchasing power with art on the top section. You grab a card to add to that another purchasing icon, with art on the bottom section. Now the next time this card comes up in your hand it is worth two icons to spend on further cards. Simple, right? Well, there are several types of purchasing icons (stars, leaves, paws, etc), not just one general icon. Some cards will furnish you with the other icons that you can use to purchase Vale cards (see photo below). These are powerful cards that can provide VPs and other actions to propel you to victory.
There’s so much in this game, even with just the vanilla base cards, that I just cannot explain everything here. So I won’t. If you have questions, do let me know. Speaking of the base game, here’s what you get.
A box. The box is decent size and will accommodate an expansion. I believe it is supposed to handle more than one, but in my experience, I wasn’t able to fit a whole lot in there with the provided insert. So I made my own. The VP tokens are great. The plastic cards are really great, but they have a strange (or familiar if you have played games like Gloom) smell to them that takes a bit to get used to smelling. Also, the cards come with a protective cling-film layer that will eventually start peeling off. These are used to facilitate printing on the plastic, and can be kept on or taken off – your preference. I’ll tell you what though. The art on this game is absolutely stellar. I really haven’t seen much better on a game, so I definitely am keeping my protective film on mine. The sleeves are decent, but I have had a few blowouts from usage. The game comes with more sleeves than is necessary, so I am hoping I never run out.
This review is long enough, but I wanted the reader to know that I hold this game in VERY high regard. It is well entrenched in my Top 10 list, and I don’t see it moving downward any time soon. The expansions definitely add a ton of replayability to it, but even as is, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a revivified 21 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/mystic-vale-review/
DISCLAIMER: This review focuses on vanilla Mystic Vale. We have most of the expansions in our collections, and we may do reviews on them and how they change the experience. If we do, we will either update this review or link to the expansion reviews here. -T
Okay, so the last part of my intro doesn’t quite make thematic sense, but this is a competitive game. A really good competitive game where there really isn’t a ton of direct player interaction, so if you enjoy merely messing with your opponents’ plans and just seeming like an annoying bee sting, read on.
I will also get this out of the way early: this is my first Card Crafting Game and the first of its type (that I know of, anyway). The concept is explained in the next paragraph. There are now others, but this is the grand-daddy. I was skeptical at first and was late to hop on the bandwagon here, but when I did I was really blown away. You have your own deck of cards that is exactly the same as your opponents’ decks, with a different colored back. Throw those cards into the provided clear sleeves, set up the other decks from which you will be purchasing upgrade cards, and you are setup.
The game mechanics are familiar, where you are pushing your luck to flip over cards from your deck to create a hand of cards… or bust and do nothing. Using the symbols on these cards allows you purchase cards from the current offering grid. Once you have purchased your new card(s) you must put them in the sleeves along with your starting cards to improve those starting cards! How can we do this, you ask? THE CARDS ARE SEE-THROUGH PLASTIC CARDS. Some starting cards are completely blank, and so adding to them drastically increases their value. This is a twist on the old deck building mechanic where you are no longer adding cards to make your deck more plentiful, but you are improving the sleeved cards you already have.
The art on the cards you are purchasing from the offer are printed in a way where information is split into three areas – top, middle, and bottom. So, you may have a starting card that gives you one icon worth of purchasing power with art on the top section. You grab a card to add to that another purchasing icon, with art on the bottom section. Now the next time this card comes up in your hand it is worth two icons to spend on further cards. Simple, right? Well, there are several types of purchasing icons (stars, leaves, paws, etc), not just one general icon. Some cards will furnish you with the other icons that you can use to purchase Vale cards (see photo below). These are powerful cards that can provide VPs and other actions to propel you to victory.
There’s so much in this game, even with just the vanilla base cards, that I just cannot explain everything here. So I won’t. If you have questions, do let me know. Speaking of the base game, here’s what you get.
A box. The box is decent size and will accommodate an expansion. I believe it is supposed to handle more than one, but in my experience, I wasn’t able to fit a whole lot in there with the provided insert. So I made my own. The VP tokens are great. The plastic cards are really great, but they have a strange (or familiar if you have played games like Gloom) smell to them that takes a bit to get used to smelling. Also, the cards come with a protective cling-film layer that will eventually start peeling off. These are used to facilitate printing on the plastic, and can be kept on or taken off – your preference. I’ll tell you what though. The art on this game is absolutely stellar. I really haven’t seen much better on a game, so I definitely am keeping my protective film on mine. The sleeves are decent, but I have had a few blowouts from usage. The game comes with more sleeves than is necessary, so I am hoping I never run out.
This review is long enough, but I wanted the reader to know that I hold this game in VERY high regard. It is well entrenched in my Top 10 list, and I don’t see it moving downward any time soon. The expansions definitely add a ton of replayability to it, but even as is, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a revivified 21 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/mystic-vale-review/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Baby Doll in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Firstly Id like to thank Netgalley and Random House UK, Cornerstone for the opportunity to read this book.
<b><i>BABY DOLL is the most tense thriller you will read this year.</b></i> no it isnt.
<b>1.5 stars</b>
I was looking forward to giving this a read, it sounded like an exciting thriller; woman escapes from her captor and now shes trying to rebuild her life and future. But it doesnt really start out that way everything kind of falls into place for Lily in the first few pages and so you think, is this going to be as exciting as I first hoped? Well the answer to that is no, its not.
Its all very over the top. <i>Every single thing</i> Abby & Lily do is grossly OTT. I mean I dont personally know how I, or my family would react if something like this happened but it all seems very overplayed, cliche and cheesy.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/MGmnFOZRFRo4w/giphy.gif"; width="370" height="220" alt="yaaaawn"/>
Its also a bit ridiculous, not the kidnapping and abuse, of course <b>thats</b> not, but everything else is. The town seems raving mad, no wonder no one noticed a psychopath in their midst! I mean for one, this town needs to sort out its police force, theyre <b>so</b> unprofessional! <spoiler>Sleeping around and beating people to a pulp. Stupid. <b>PLUS</b> Why were they unable to get Abby off of Rick when she was stabbing him? It felt like they were all just standing around and watching her until they thought, OK thatll do now.</spoiler>
I dont think Overton did a particularly good job at portraying the characters. They all seemed very wooden and lifeless. I found them all to be extremely childish, shallow and very selfish and so couldnt connect with any of them. They also felt completely fake, like the things they did and said were not something you could imagine a real person doing or saying. We were supposed to empathise with Lily but it just wasnt possible for me, she was cold and boring and I think the multiple POVs was a bad call on Overtons part because it means we cant spend that time getting to know the character and instead have to put up with everyone else's junk <i>(cough cough the mother's affair cough cough)</i> that we dont care about, which disconnects us entirely from the story. I would go so far as to say I felt this story was more about idiotic Abby than it was about boring ol Lily. We also couldnt attach to Lily because this book moved so ridiculously fast! I couldnt keep up, whats the rush?
I dont think this was very well written either, it all seemed very rushed. Also, why was Eve called Eve one minute and Mom the next? And why couldnt Abby call Mr Hanson by his actual name? We get it, he was your teacher, but youre an adult now, with a kid and this man ruined your sister's life, would you really be calling him Mr Hanson all the time. It was like I was reading the POV of a 6 year old.
I admit the twist was quite a shock and I hadnt seen <i>that</i> particular ending coming about, but I still thought it was a bit silly, hence the extra half a star I gave the book. <spoiler>Can we please note that this (the murder) is like the 5th time in the book when Abby does something for Lily but really shes just being selfish and doing it for herself because she cant get a fucking grip.</spoiler>
Too "family drama" for me. I wanted a fast paced thriller not some sappy, emotional love story. This book was supposed to focus on the broken Lily rebuilding her life with her loving family surrounding her, but instead turned into a ridiculous love triangle story that I couldnt care less about. Give me more of Ricks POV if you must, <b>anything to get me away from twin sisters fighting over one stupid man.</b> Abby was so fucking annoying when it came to Wes, she was so desperately needy for him all the while putting on a stupid I-dont-need-you front. Deal with it Abby, you love him and he loves you, <b>just fucking deal with it.</b>
In the end I skipped the last 10 pages or so, I was done with this book when I was 20% the way through Maybe this would be a good book for people who are into chick-lit/women's fiction - whatever that means, but its not my cup of tea.
<b><i>BABY DOLL is the most tense thriller you will read this year.</b></i> no it isnt.
<b>1.5 stars</b>
I was looking forward to giving this a read, it sounded like an exciting thriller; woman escapes from her captor and now shes trying to rebuild her life and future. But it doesnt really start out that way everything kind of falls into place for Lily in the first few pages and so you think, is this going to be as exciting as I first hoped? Well the answer to that is no, its not.
Its all very over the top. <i>Every single thing</i> Abby & Lily do is grossly OTT. I mean I dont personally know how I, or my family would react if something like this happened but it all seems very overplayed, cliche and cheesy.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/MGmnFOZRFRo4w/giphy.gif"; width="370" height="220" alt="yaaaawn"/>
Its also a bit ridiculous, not the kidnapping and abuse, of course <b>thats</b> not, but everything else is. The town seems raving mad, no wonder no one noticed a psychopath in their midst! I mean for one, this town needs to sort out its police force, theyre <b>so</b> unprofessional! <spoiler>Sleeping around and beating people to a pulp. Stupid. <b>PLUS</b> Why were they unable to get Abby off of Rick when she was stabbing him? It felt like they were all just standing around and watching her until they thought, OK thatll do now.</spoiler>
I dont think Overton did a particularly good job at portraying the characters. They all seemed very wooden and lifeless. I found them all to be extremely childish, shallow and very selfish and so couldnt connect with any of them. They also felt completely fake, like the things they did and said were not something you could imagine a real person doing or saying. We were supposed to empathise with Lily but it just wasnt possible for me, she was cold and boring and I think the multiple POVs was a bad call on Overtons part because it means we cant spend that time getting to know the character and instead have to put up with everyone else's junk <i>(cough cough the mother's affair cough cough)</i> that we dont care about, which disconnects us entirely from the story. I would go so far as to say I felt this story was more about idiotic Abby than it was about boring ol Lily. We also couldnt attach to Lily because this book moved so ridiculously fast! I couldnt keep up, whats the rush?
I dont think this was very well written either, it all seemed very rushed. Also, why was Eve called Eve one minute and Mom the next? And why couldnt Abby call Mr Hanson by his actual name? We get it, he was your teacher, but youre an adult now, with a kid and this man ruined your sister's life, would you really be calling him Mr Hanson all the time. It was like I was reading the POV of a 6 year old.
I admit the twist was quite a shock and I hadnt seen <i>that</i> particular ending coming about, but I still thought it was a bit silly, hence the extra half a star I gave the book. <spoiler>Can we please note that this (the murder) is like the 5th time in the book when Abby does something for Lily but really shes just being selfish and doing it for herself because she cant get a fucking grip.</spoiler>
Too "family drama" for me. I wanted a fast paced thriller not some sappy, emotional love story. This book was supposed to focus on the broken Lily rebuilding her life with her loving family surrounding her, but instead turned into a ridiculous love triangle story that I couldnt care less about. Give me more of Ricks POV if you must, <b>anything to get me away from twin sisters fighting over one stupid man.</b> Abby was so fucking annoying when it came to Wes, she was so desperately needy for him all the while putting on a stupid I-dont-need-you front. Deal with it Abby, you love him and he loves you, <b>just fucking deal with it.</b>
In the end I skipped the last 10 pages or so, I was done with this book when I was 20% the way through Maybe this would be a good book for people who are into chick-lit/women's fiction - whatever that means, but its not my cup of tea.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Ruby's Fire in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review will be available on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a> in August).
You know when you get a book, and it's much better than you thought it was going to be? Well, Ruby's Fire by Catherine Stine was definitely one of those books! I absolutely loved it, and it's definitely one of my favorite books that I've read in 2013!
Ruby is a 17 year old girl who, with her 8 year old brother Thorn, escapes from a cult which pairs young girls with much older men. Ruby and Thorn arrive at a school known as The Greening. Here she meets a whole cast of characters. When an act of bullying goes horribly wrong, Ruby and her brother Thorn are left with extreme changes that alter their DNA. When a contest in announces with a prize of a hefty cash sum, all the students are The Greening are excited! However, this competition reveals that all is not what it seems.
I do like the title, and I find it very interesting! However, I don't really get the meaning of it. Maybe I'm just being thick, but it makes no sense to me.
I think the cover does an amazing job at depicting the plot of the book. In fact, this is one of the best book covers I've ever seen that is actually relevant to the book. Whoever came up with this idea for the cover is a genius!
I enjoyed the setting of this book very much! I like the futuristic/dystopian world that Stine has created. Catherine Stine does an awesome job at making this world come alive. The world in which Ruby lives has become unbearably hot, and people must wear masks and burn suits if they don't want to burn. The author paints a vivid picture of this throughout the book. I can very much see this happening in the future.
The pacing was done really well! Not once in the book did I feel like the pacing was going too slow or too fast for my liking. I couldn't wait to find out what would happen next. If it was possible to eat books by reading them quickly because they are amazing, this would would've been gone in flash!
What an amazing plot! Besides the main plot, there were lots of sub-plots! Will Ruby figure out what is wrong with her and Thorn? Will she choose Armonk or Blane since she cares for both? Can she escape her past? That's just some of the questions answered in the book. Also, there is a fantastic plot twist that I didn't see coming!
All of the characters were written superbly! I loved Ruby and how willing she was to take care of her little brother. Ruby was a very down to Earth character who had went through a lot of hardships. I believe this made her a better person. What I didn't like about her was the fact that she kept going on about how beautiful she was. However, this is probably just a personal thing. I found Thorn to be so cute!! It would've been interesting to see things from his point of view as the book is told from Ruby's point of view. Armonk seems like such a sweet guy, and I loved how he was willing to defend his friends. I feel like Armonk was an all around nice guy. I really loved Blane! I like how he grew as a person going from a mean brute to a gentle warrior. It was nice to see this change in him. Like Armonk, I loved how he was willing to protect his friends at all cost.
The dialogue was fantastic! It is told in a first person point of view with Ruby being the narrator. I usually don't enjoy first person reads as much as third person ones, but this one was done fantastically! Some books that take place in the future have really cheesy dialogue, but Ruby's Fire wasn't one of those books. The dialogue was also easy to understand with no futuristic terms getting in the way. There are a few swear words though.
Overall, Ruby's Fire by Catherine Stine is such an amazing and interesting read! While it is a part of a series, it can be read as a stand alone. I usually don't read books out of series order because I feel like I'll miss so much information, but this book can actually be read as a standalone without missing much. (The first book in the series talks about a minor character in this book).
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who want some adventure in their life!
I'd give Ruby's Fire by Catherine Stine a 5 out of 5.
(I received a free paperback copy of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
You know when you get a book, and it's much better than you thought it was going to be? Well, Ruby's Fire by Catherine Stine was definitely one of those books! I absolutely loved it, and it's definitely one of my favorite books that I've read in 2013!
Ruby is a 17 year old girl who, with her 8 year old brother Thorn, escapes from a cult which pairs young girls with much older men. Ruby and Thorn arrive at a school known as The Greening. Here she meets a whole cast of characters. When an act of bullying goes horribly wrong, Ruby and her brother Thorn are left with extreme changes that alter their DNA. When a contest in announces with a prize of a hefty cash sum, all the students are The Greening are excited! However, this competition reveals that all is not what it seems.
I do like the title, and I find it very interesting! However, I don't really get the meaning of it. Maybe I'm just being thick, but it makes no sense to me.
I think the cover does an amazing job at depicting the plot of the book. In fact, this is one of the best book covers I've ever seen that is actually relevant to the book. Whoever came up with this idea for the cover is a genius!
I enjoyed the setting of this book very much! I like the futuristic/dystopian world that Stine has created. Catherine Stine does an awesome job at making this world come alive. The world in which Ruby lives has become unbearably hot, and people must wear masks and burn suits if they don't want to burn. The author paints a vivid picture of this throughout the book. I can very much see this happening in the future.
The pacing was done really well! Not once in the book did I feel like the pacing was going too slow or too fast for my liking. I couldn't wait to find out what would happen next. If it was possible to eat books by reading them quickly because they are amazing, this would would've been gone in flash!
What an amazing plot! Besides the main plot, there were lots of sub-plots! Will Ruby figure out what is wrong with her and Thorn? Will she choose Armonk or Blane since she cares for both? Can she escape her past? That's just some of the questions answered in the book. Also, there is a fantastic plot twist that I didn't see coming!
All of the characters were written superbly! I loved Ruby and how willing she was to take care of her little brother. Ruby was a very down to Earth character who had went through a lot of hardships. I believe this made her a better person. What I didn't like about her was the fact that she kept going on about how beautiful she was. However, this is probably just a personal thing. I found Thorn to be so cute!! It would've been interesting to see things from his point of view as the book is told from Ruby's point of view. Armonk seems like such a sweet guy, and I loved how he was willing to defend his friends. I feel like Armonk was an all around nice guy. I really loved Blane! I like how he grew as a person going from a mean brute to a gentle warrior. It was nice to see this change in him. Like Armonk, I loved how he was willing to protect his friends at all cost.
The dialogue was fantastic! It is told in a first person point of view with Ruby being the narrator. I usually don't enjoy first person reads as much as third person ones, but this one was done fantastically! Some books that take place in the future have really cheesy dialogue, but Ruby's Fire wasn't one of those books. The dialogue was also easy to understand with no futuristic terms getting in the way. There are a few swear words though.
Overall, Ruby's Fire by Catherine Stine is such an amazing and interesting read! While it is a part of a series, it can be read as a stand alone. I usually don't read books out of series order because I feel like I'll miss so much information, but this book can actually be read as a standalone without missing much. (The first book in the series talks about a minor character in this book).
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who want some adventure in their life!
I'd give Ruby's Fire by Catherine Stine a 5 out of 5.
(I received a free paperback copy of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).