Search
Search results
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Lawyer's Lawyer (Jack Tobin, #3) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
You know what makes certain books fantastic? Character development. That was the strongest point of The Lawyer’s Lawyer; the characters were wonderful.
Jack, the protagonist, was clever and intelligent and innovative and full of emotion (and hilarious when drunk). He was the kind of person I’d want to hang around… and for that matter, so were his friends. They left you with the feeling of belonging, of security. And by the end of the book, you’re thanking your lucky stars Jack had those friends, because they saved his rear end!
Danny was awesome. For the sake of keeping this review spoiler-free, I’ll just say this: The best people are the ones who do everything in love—whether those things are good or bad is up for you to decide.
And the bad guys! Sometimes the bad guys are the best! This was definitely the case in this book. One of the characters, Sam (the police chief), started off as this guy who was a little annoying. But as the story went on, I began to like him less and less, and finally at the end, I despised him. And the lawyer who represented the State in the case? Man that guy was a twit. I hated his guts. I wanted to slap him across the face.
The other exceptional attribute of this book was the narrator for the audiobook. He is incredibly talented, giving unique and identifiable voices to each character that totally described their person in a few sounds. I’m adding Rick Zieff to my list of narrators to look for in the future!
There were a few parts I would have liked to see improved: namely the beginning of the story, a chapter in the middle, and the very last scene. In the beginning, we are met with character development and background information, which is all fine… but there’s this one random case that Jack works that has nothing to do with the main plot. I kept waiting for it to come back into the main story, but it never did, and it felt out of place.
Then there was the scene in the middle, and the other part, the ending. These scenes were just borderline sappy. Danny and Jack are in love and they date and have hot sex and get all wishy-washy and twitterpated. And I’ll be the first to admit that I thoroughly enjoy being twitterpated, especially with sexy fictional characters. But I’m going to be brutally honest here… James Sheehan, you are a thriller writer… NOT a romance writer. And there’s a good reason for that: Because you suck at romance.
All in all, I absolutely loved The Lawyer’s Lawyer, and look forward to more from Sheehan.
Content/Recommendation: Some language, mild violence, mention of sex. Ages 17+
Jack, the protagonist, was clever and intelligent and innovative and full of emotion (and hilarious when drunk). He was the kind of person I’d want to hang around… and for that matter, so were his friends. They left you with the feeling of belonging, of security. And by the end of the book, you’re thanking your lucky stars Jack had those friends, because they saved his rear end!
Danny was awesome. For the sake of keeping this review spoiler-free, I’ll just say this: The best people are the ones who do everything in love—whether those things are good or bad is up for you to decide.
And the bad guys! Sometimes the bad guys are the best! This was definitely the case in this book. One of the characters, Sam (the police chief), started off as this guy who was a little annoying. But as the story went on, I began to like him less and less, and finally at the end, I despised him. And the lawyer who represented the State in the case? Man that guy was a twit. I hated his guts. I wanted to slap him across the face.
The other exceptional attribute of this book was the narrator for the audiobook. He is incredibly talented, giving unique and identifiable voices to each character that totally described their person in a few sounds. I’m adding Rick Zieff to my list of narrators to look for in the future!
There were a few parts I would have liked to see improved: namely the beginning of the story, a chapter in the middle, and the very last scene. In the beginning, we are met with character development and background information, which is all fine… but there’s this one random case that Jack works that has nothing to do with the main plot. I kept waiting for it to come back into the main story, but it never did, and it felt out of place.
Then there was the scene in the middle, and the other part, the ending. These scenes were just borderline sappy. Danny and Jack are in love and they date and have hot sex and get all wishy-washy and twitterpated. And I’ll be the first to admit that I thoroughly enjoy being twitterpated, especially with sexy fictional characters. But I’m going to be brutally honest here… James Sheehan, you are a thriller writer… NOT a romance writer. And there’s a good reason for that: Because you suck at romance.
All in all, I absolutely loved The Lawyer’s Lawyer, and look forward to more from Sheehan.
Content/Recommendation: Some language, mild violence, mention of sex. Ages 17+
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Turbo Kid (2015) in Movies
Apr 21, 2018
Extremely Unique
You've never seen anything like it. It was a mashup of everything I loved, both as a kid and as an adult. Set in the post-apocalyptic year of 1997, a teenager becomes a superhero to save his girlfriend from the clutches of an evil villain.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
While it may not grab you immediately, Turbo Kid's beginning succeeds in establishing the world you'll be living in for the rest of the film. This world never left the 80's. Survivors get around on mostly bikes and use old-school technology like walkmen.
My interest was really piqued when I saw three heads on pikes out in the middle of the wasteland. What did those men do to deserve that? Who put them there? The only way to really find out is to watch more. On we go...
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The visuals are extremely weird, but in a unique, good way. It's original in every way imaginable. A number of shots give you a nostalgic feel. Other shots panning the landscape leave you with a barren, hopeless feeling. So sad what their world has become, yet what an era to be stuck in!
There is violence. A lot of it. A surprising amount in fact. Heads roll, guts spew in brilliant fashion. Think Tarantino in a Mad Max type of setting. It's jarring to look at, but very entertaining and effective. If you are squeamish in anyway, you may find yourself averting your eyes. At one point, my wife actually had to leave the room.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
As far as action/adventure films go, this stands out as being extremely original. It was as if they took a number of films I had seen before and jumbled them all into one finished product. The action pops on screen and the adventure portions move the story along in swift fashion.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 10
The film never gets boring at any point. Between the crazy vibe that latches on to you with the help of an awesome soundtrack and the steady play of action, you're always engaged. I also appreciated that the film never took itself too seriously as the action is broken up by a few hilarious moments that keeps the film from getting too dark.
Plot: 8
While the plot may seem pretty straightforward at first, there are a couple twists that keep things interesting. Overall the story is a strong foundation and is intriguing enough to make you care about the action.
Resolution: 3
Overall: 86
Fun, enjoyable film. And AVAILABLE ON NETFLIX! Check it out tonight. If you're a fan of action and the 80's, you will have a blast.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
While it may not grab you immediately, Turbo Kid's beginning succeeds in establishing the world you'll be living in for the rest of the film. This world never left the 80's. Survivors get around on mostly bikes and use old-school technology like walkmen.
My interest was really piqued when I saw three heads on pikes out in the middle of the wasteland. What did those men do to deserve that? Who put them there? The only way to really find out is to watch more. On we go...
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The visuals are extremely weird, but in a unique, good way. It's original in every way imaginable. A number of shots give you a nostalgic feel. Other shots panning the landscape leave you with a barren, hopeless feeling. So sad what their world has become, yet what an era to be stuck in!
There is violence. A lot of it. A surprising amount in fact. Heads roll, guts spew in brilliant fashion. Think Tarantino in a Mad Max type of setting. It's jarring to look at, but very entertaining and effective. If you are squeamish in anyway, you may find yourself averting your eyes. At one point, my wife actually had to leave the room.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
As far as action/adventure films go, this stands out as being extremely original. It was as if they took a number of films I had seen before and jumbled them all into one finished product. The action pops on screen and the adventure portions move the story along in swift fashion.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 10
The film never gets boring at any point. Between the crazy vibe that latches on to you with the help of an awesome soundtrack and the steady play of action, you're always engaged. I also appreciated that the film never took itself too seriously as the action is broken up by a few hilarious moments that keeps the film from getting too dark.
Plot: 8
While the plot may seem pretty straightforward at first, there are a couple twists that keep things interesting. Overall the story is a strong foundation and is intriguing enough to make you care about the action.
Resolution: 3
Overall: 86
Fun, enjoyable film. And AVAILABLE ON NETFLIX! Check it out tonight. If you're a fan of action and the 80's, you will have a blast.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Wicker Man (1973) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Come. It is time to keep your appointment with the Wicker Man.
Though we never even lay eyes on it until the final few moments of the film, the Wicker Man, both as pagan image and classic horror flick, has become an icon of the genre.
But if you are expecting some dimly lit, slow burn slasher movie, then you will be sorely disappointed. The Wicker Man spends most of its runtime, which varies from its various versions, Theatrical, Director’s and Final Cuts, providing us with a pretty decent, if not disturbing insight into paganism.
Or more over, Paganism verses Christianity. Both spiritual, both magical, yet one is fun and the other is boring. The virgin sacrifice by the sexually liberated heathens is played out brilliantly.
The beauty here is that the final twist is so well conceived and executed throughout the entire film that even though most of us know the ending whether we have seen the film or not, it is not spoiled by that foreknowledge.
It is a kin to the previously released Planet Of The Apes (1968) or the much later Sixth Sense (1999). Both spin out complex genre tales which culminate in “that ending”. But in this case, Edward Woodward delivers a chilling performance in the finale, as he is taken to his death, locked inside the burning Wicker Man to be sacrificed in order to restore the poor harvest of the previous year.
“Don’t you see that killing me is not going to bring back your apples?”
But Woodward’s character is a devout Christian and he has only his faith and a dogged view of the world to aide him. Unable to accept the seemingly free spirited community in which his finds himself, one where sex is commonplace as he himself is still a virgin.
On the other hand there is Lord Summerisle, Christopher Lee, who steals the show as per usual as the charismatic leader of the this pagan community and the descendant of a lord who routed Christianity from the Highland Island a century before.
But whilst on the surface it may seem like a rather academic subject, the film is a trippy 1970’s sexploitation movie in many ways. Some of the sex and violence fits in well with plot but other moments, such as the nude dance by Britt Ekland, though actually doubled by Lorraine Peters is a prime example of a needless, if not memorable sequence.
Overall, The Wicker Man is low budget British movie of the 1970’s and one which has endured to earn it’s classic status, by meeting the main criteria of being smart, engaging and visually compelling, along with several standout performances throughout.
But if you are expecting some dimly lit, slow burn slasher movie, then you will be sorely disappointed. The Wicker Man spends most of its runtime, which varies from its various versions, Theatrical, Director’s and Final Cuts, providing us with a pretty decent, if not disturbing insight into paganism.
Or more over, Paganism verses Christianity. Both spiritual, both magical, yet one is fun and the other is boring. The virgin sacrifice by the sexually liberated heathens is played out brilliantly.
The beauty here is that the final twist is so well conceived and executed throughout the entire film that even though most of us know the ending whether we have seen the film or not, it is not spoiled by that foreknowledge.
It is a kin to the previously released Planet Of The Apes (1968) or the much later Sixth Sense (1999). Both spin out complex genre tales which culminate in “that ending”. But in this case, Edward Woodward delivers a chilling performance in the finale, as he is taken to his death, locked inside the burning Wicker Man to be sacrificed in order to restore the poor harvest of the previous year.
“Don’t you see that killing me is not going to bring back your apples?”
But Woodward’s character is a devout Christian and he has only his faith and a dogged view of the world to aide him. Unable to accept the seemingly free spirited community in which his finds himself, one where sex is commonplace as he himself is still a virgin.
On the other hand there is Lord Summerisle, Christopher Lee, who steals the show as per usual as the charismatic leader of the this pagan community and the descendant of a lord who routed Christianity from the Highland Island a century before.
But whilst on the surface it may seem like a rather academic subject, the film is a trippy 1970’s sexploitation movie in many ways. Some of the sex and violence fits in well with plot but other moments, such as the nude dance by Britt Ekland, though actually doubled by Lorraine Peters is a prime example of a needless, if not memorable sequence.
Overall, The Wicker Man is low budget British movie of the 1970’s and one which has endured to earn it’s classic status, by meeting the main criteria of being smart, engaging and visually compelling, along with several standout performances throughout.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Dragged Across Concrete (2019) in Movies
May 5, 2019
What a thrill ride!
So to say director S. Craig Zahler is one of my favorites working today is an understatement. I was a HUGE fan of his first two films, Bone Tomahawk and Brawl in Cell Block 99 (read my reviews on both on Smashbomb) so I was really looking forward to this one. Of course the film did not play at a cinema local to me, so I had to wait until Blu Ray to give it a watch and I was enthralled.
Two cops on suspension for using excessive force against a drug dealing hoodlum leave very different lives off the job. One is prone to violence living in a bad neighborhood desperate for better for his wife and child and the other just wants to marry the girl of his dreams and is now worried she will no longer have him.
Out of desperation, the men decide to participate in a criminal enterprise to better their own personal situations and end up inside something much bigger. The decisions they make within the context of the second act of the film will have profound repercussions throughout the remainder of their lives.The two cops do what they have to do to try and make their lives better and help their families through hard times.
I don't want to sound like a movie snob here, but after viewing the film I checked out the MANY 1 star reviews this film received on IMDb and was not surprised. I am not making fun of the modern movie going public at all. I enjoy explosions and superheroes as much as anyone; however, for some time I have strived to find the different, unusual, deeper film where its heroes don't wear spandex and everything is not just black and white. Those films have their place.
This film was kind of "Tarantino-esque" in the way the story was told, the way the characters conversed with each other and even the fact that the characters were multilayered and very interesting. There were also several stories going on simultaneously at the beginning and didn't combine until well into the film. One could argue the 2 hour and 40 minute film "dragged" (no pun intended) at times or had unnecessary scenes, but no one complained when Marge Gunderson had lunch with Mike Yanagita, so that didn't bother me here.
Both of Zahler's previous films were violent and had that one squeamish scene you could hardly believe happened as did this film.
I can safely say this movie isn't for everyone and its slow pace will turn off some modern moviegoers who expect non stop action. Having said that, I still highly recommend this movie and would love to know your opinion once watching it.
Two cops on suspension for using excessive force against a drug dealing hoodlum leave very different lives off the job. One is prone to violence living in a bad neighborhood desperate for better for his wife and child and the other just wants to marry the girl of his dreams and is now worried she will no longer have him.
Out of desperation, the men decide to participate in a criminal enterprise to better their own personal situations and end up inside something much bigger. The decisions they make within the context of the second act of the film will have profound repercussions throughout the remainder of their lives.The two cops do what they have to do to try and make their lives better and help their families through hard times.
I don't want to sound like a movie snob here, but after viewing the film I checked out the MANY 1 star reviews this film received on IMDb and was not surprised. I am not making fun of the modern movie going public at all. I enjoy explosions and superheroes as much as anyone; however, for some time I have strived to find the different, unusual, deeper film where its heroes don't wear spandex and everything is not just black and white. Those films have their place.
This film was kind of "Tarantino-esque" in the way the story was told, the way the characters conversed with each other and even the fact that the characters were multilayered and very interesting. There were also several stories going on simultaneously at the beginning and didn't combine until well into the film. One could argue the 2 hour and 40 minute film "dragged" (no pun intended) at times or had unnecessary scenes, but no one complained when Marge Gunderson had lunch with Mike Yanagita, so that didn't bother me here.
Both of Zahler's previous films were violent and had that one squeamish scene you could hardly believe happened as did this film.
I can safely say this movie isn't for everyone and its slow pace will turn off some modern moviegoers who expect non stop action. Having said that, I still highly recommend this movie and would love to know your opinion once watching it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Third time lucky?
The X-Men franchise is as convoluted as Spaghetti Junction. Littered with constantly changing timelines, it has become the epitome of tiring and fans are getting exasperated too. With every great film (X2, X-Men: Days of Future Past), the series has followed it with some truly awful movies (X-Men: Origins Wolverine, X-Men: Apocalypse).
To this end, Hugh Jackman has finally decided to hang up his Adamantium claws after Logan, his ninth and apparently final outing as the grizzly hero. Are we third time lucky for his solo films?
James Mangold, director of The Wolverine, returns to the director’s chair and helms an at times brutal and uncompromising film speckled with the sort of emotional heft you’d find in the saddest rom-com’s.
In the near future, a weary Logan (Hugh Jackman) cares for an ailing Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) in a hide out on the Mexican border accompanied by long-time acquaintance Caliban (Stephen Merchant). But Logan’s attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are upended when a young mutant, Laura, (Dafne Keen) arrives, being pursued by unspeakable dark forces.
In parts, Logan feels very much like a Western. The bleak, unforgiving Mexican landscape is a beautiful change from the dreary concrete jungles that blight the majority of superhero films these days and this is where Logan will either succeed or fail. It doesn’t feel like a superhero film, despite its faithfulness to the Old Man Logan comics.
Much like a metaphor for the genre itself, Logan has grown weary of the world and it is a testament to Hugh Jackman’s acting capabilities that he is able to add yet another dimension to a character that has been a cinema staple since the Millennium. Patrick Stewart is also on top form showing a vulnerable side to the world’s smartest mutant. Newcomer, Dafne Keen is also exceptional despite her limited dialogue.
Heartfelt scenes in which the oddball family share dinner with kind strangers are strikingly juxtaposed with sequences of sheer brutality. If you thought Deadpool was bloody, you haven’t seen anything yet. And for all the violence, Logan is the most poignant film in the entire X-Men canon, wearing its 15 certification proudly when it needs to, but not shying away from sections of quiet contemplation.
Negatives? Well, in spite of its gargantuan length, the ending feels a little tacked on and rushed – something a lot of modern blockbusters seem to feel is necessary at the moment and the final 30 minutes are a slight anti-climax in comparison to what preceded it, but on the whole, this final outing for Hugh Jackman proves a fitting one. Third time’s a charm!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/03/third-time-lucky-logan-review/
To this end, Hugh Jackman has finally decided to hang up his Adamantium claws after Logan, his ninth and apparently final outing as the grizzly hero. Are we third time lucky for his solo films?
James Mangold, director of The Wolverine, returns to the director’s chair and helms an at times brutal and uncompromising film speckled with the sort of emotional heft you’d find in the saddest rom-com’s.
In the near future, a weary Logan (Hugh Jackman) cares for an ailing Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) in a hide out on the Mexican border accompanied by long-time acquaintance Caliban (Stephen Merchant). But Logan’s attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are upended when a young mutant, Laura, (Dafne Keen) arrives, being pursued by unspeakable dark forces.
In parts, Logan feels very much like a Western. The bleak, unforgiving Mexican landscape is a beautiful change from the dreary concrete jungles that blight the majority of superhero films these days and this is where Logan will either succeed or fail. It doesn’t feel like a superhero film, despite its faithfulness to the Old Man Logan comics.
Much like a metaphor for the genre itself, Logan has grown weary of the world and it is a testament to Hugh Jackman’s acting capabilities that he is able to add yet another dimension to a character that has been a cinema staple since the Millennium. Patrick Stewart is also on top form showing a vulnerable side to the world’s smartest mutant. Newcomer, Dafne Keen is also exceptional despite her limited dialogue.
Heartfelt scenes in which the oddball family share dinner with kind strangers are strikingly juxtaposed with sequences of sheer brutality. If you thought Deadpool was bloody, you haven’t seen anything yet. And for all the violence, Logan is the most poignant film in the entire X-Men canon, wearing its 15 certification proudly when it needs to, but not shying away from sections of quiet contemplation.
Negatives? Well, in spite of its gargantuan length, the ending feels a little tacked on and rushed – something a lot of modern blockbusters seem to feel is necessary at the moment and the final 30 minutes are a slight anti-climax in comparison to what preceded it, but on the whole, this final outing for Hugh Jackman proves a fitting one. Third time’s a charm!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/03/third-time-lucky-logan-review/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 22 July (2018) in Movies
Oct 22, 2018 (Updated Oct 22, 2018)
Good Direction (1 more)
Well Acted
An Important, If Terrifying Recent Tragedy
22 July is a Netflix film directed by Paul Greengrass about a brutal 2011 terrorist attack in Oslo.
This film is hard to watch.
I'm a guy that loves gory action flicks and intense horror movies, but something like this is far more disturbing to me. The film is so well made on a technical level, that at some points it actually feels like you are watching the real life massacre play out, which to me felt a little bit too real. Thankfully, I have never been affected by an act of terrorism, nor has anyone that I know, but if I had, I'm not sure how I would feel about someone making a movie like this retelling the trauma that those people went through.
I appreciate that this is an important event in recent history and shouldn't be something that is easily forgotten, but the brutal realism of this film is hard to stomach at times. It really puts you in the shoes of the victims and let's you imagine the terror and crippling fear that they must have felt.
The actor that plays the perpetrator of the attack, Anders Behring Breivik, (played by Anders Danielsen Lie,) has to be commended. He was so believable in the role that I ended up getting really angry every time that he appeared in a scene. I don't even want to know what an actor has to do to get into that headspace, but he put in an absolutely sublime performance as a deplorable scumbag.
The other standout role was Jonas Strand Gravli as Viljar Hanssen, one of the victims of the attack. He is the audience's main conduit into this horrific event and he is brilliant throughout the film.
The main criticism that I have is that we are shown this horrific attack in brutal detail and the aftermath of the event, with no real purpose. I am not sure what the point of this movie was other than to retell a gut wrenching, terrifying story of a real life terrorist attack. I guess, if you were to do some reaching, you could say that the fact that the film has no point echoes the fact that this brutal act of mass violence also had no point and sometimes these horrific things just happen with no real reason.
Overall, this is a very well made movie. It is full of heavy emotions and will make you think about the nature of the human mind. This is if you can get through it though, the movie is very hard to watch and I can see a good amount of folks turning off because they can't handle it, which I can totally understand.
This film is hard to watch.
I'm a guy that loves gory action flicks and intense horror movies, but something like this is far more disturbing to me. The film is so well made on a technical level, that at some points it actually feels like you are watching the real life massacre play out, which to me felt a little bit too real. Thankfully, I have never been affected by an act of terrorism, nor has anyone that I know, but if I had, I'm not sure how I would feel about someone making a movie like this retelling the trauma that those people went through.
I appreciate that this is an important event in recent history and shouldn't be something that is easily forgotten, but the brutal realism of this film is hard to stomach at times. It really puts you in the shoes of the victims and let's you imagine the terror and crippling fear that they must have felt.
The actor that plays the perpetrator of the attack, Anders Behring Breivik, (played by Anders Danielsen Lie,) has to be commended. He was so believable in the role that I ended up getting really angry every time that he appeared in a scene. I don't even want to know what an actor has to do to get into that headspace, but he put in an absolutely sublime performance as a deplorable scumbag.
The other standout role was Jonas Strand Gravli as Viljar Hanssen, one of the victims of the attack. He is the audience's main conduit into this horrific event and he is brilliant throughout the film.
The main criticism that I have is that we are shown this horrific attack in brutal detail and the aftermath of the event, with no real purpose. I am not sure what the point of this movie was other than to retell a gut wrenching, terrifying story of a real life terrorist attack. I guess, if you were to do some reaching, you could say that the fact that the film has no point echoes the fact that this brutal act of mass violence also had no point and sometimes these horrific things just happen with no real reason.
Overall, this is a very well made movie. It is full of heavy emotions and will make you think about the nature of the human mind. This is if you can get through it though, the movie is very hard to watch and I can see a good amount of folks turning off because they can't handle it, which I can totally understand.
Debbiereadsbook (1478 KP) rated Surreal Estate in Books
Nov 5, 2018
love love LOVED this one!
Sasha can't live at home, so he's on the streets. He finds an empty home that calls to his 6th sense and moves in. Then Nick buys the house. The house reacts badly to Nick wanting to sell it, and makes Nick's already tight budget and time frame almost impossible. Sasha doesn't want Nick to end up in the hospital, or worse, so he has to come up with something quick, while clearly out and healing his grandfather's house.
I won a copy of this book, and I am so bloody glad I did! Ms Ryan usually writes Young Adult and had this book came with that tag, I would not have entered, cos I'm not a YA fan. This is Ms Ryan's first foray into a much more adult setting, and into the male/male genre, and BOY does she smash it out the park!
Sasha can read houses, they call to him. His skill isn't made immediately clear, and we have to wait for the full picture. I think it really hit me, just what this meant for Sasha, when he was healing his grandfather's house.
I loved we got all of Nick's internal wrangling with himself over his growing feelings and attraction to Sasha. Loved that he was like, "okay then, must be bi" Loved the interaction between Nick and his brothers! His older brother needs a story now, needs to find his happy ever after, especially after what happened here. Well both brothers should have a story, I think!
It's not overly explicit, I thought, but it wans't lacking in any thing regards to the heat and steam level between these two! Not at all! It does carry a violence and drug use warning. These ARE needed and are an integral part of the story, but they are all off screen. We know Sasha's mum does drugs, but we don't see it. We know WHAT happened to Nick, cos we deal with the fall out, but not HOW. It also comes with a non-con warning. It's mostly touching, and doesn't develop into a full blown attack, but could very well have. It needs mentioning though.
It's told from both Sasha and Nick's point of view, in the first person. Each change occurs as a a chapter changes and is clearly headed. I didn't quite manage to read it in one sitting, but very nearly!
I can't wait to see what Ms Ryan comes up with next. I love finding new to me authors, especially ones who step outside their comfort zone! She impressed me here, greatly, and, apparently, I'm a tough critic! I'm not sure that's true, but I LOVED this book.
so,
5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
I won a copy of this book, and I am so bloody glad I did! Ms Ryan usually writes Young Adult and had this book came with that tag, I would not have entered, cos I'm not a YA fan. This is Ms Ryan's first foray into a much more adult setting, and into the male/male genre, and BOY does she smash it out the park!
Sasha can read houses, they call to him. His skill isn't made immediately clear, and we have to wait for the full picture. I think it really hit me, just what this meant for Sasha, when he was healing his grandfather's house.
I loved we got all of Nick's internal wrangling with himself over his growing feelings and attraction to Sasha. Loved that he was like, "okay then, must be bi" Loved the interaction between Nick and his brothers! His older brother needs a story now, needs to find his happy ever after, especially after what happened here. Well both brothers should have a story, I think!
It's not overly explicit, I thought, but it wans't lacking in any thing regards to the heat and steam level between these two! Not at all! It does carry a violence and drug use warning. These ARE needed and are an integral part of the story, but they are all off screen. We know Sasha's mum does drugs, but we don't see it. We know WHAT happened to Nick, cos we deal with the fall out, but not HOW. It also comes with a non-con warning. It's mostly touching, and doesn't develop into a full blown attack, but could very well have. It needs mentioning though.
It's told from both Sasha and Nick's point of view, in the first person. Each change occurs as a a chapter changes and is clearly headed. I didn't quite manage to read it in one sitting, but very nearly!
I can't wait to see what Ms Ryan comes up with next. I love finding new to me authors, especially ones who step outside their comfort zone! She impressed me here, greatly, and, apparently, I'm a tough critic! I'm not sure that's true, but I LOVED this book.
so,
5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Destroyer (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
It feels like Nicole Kidman has been making a big screen comeback recently. I enjoyed Aquaman and The Upside, we're also looking forward to seeing her in Boy Erased next month. I was aware that this one was going to be a little... different shall we say? But I hadn't read up much about it. It's a very surprising role to see her in.
Days after seeing Destroyer I'm still not any clearer about the whole thing. It almost felt like it had gritty TV crime drama potential but as a film I was a little underwhelmed.
I spent a long time wondering if I had missed something, the ending caused me the following reaction... "wait... oh... huh." I'm not sure that the way it tied itself up worked. It left me a little confused, not because the story didn't make sense but because of the way the film had been organised.
The main character, Erin, takes some pretty extreme measures during the film because of our bad guy. But out bad guy doesn't seem to warrant that behaviour. Sure he's a little nuts but as a catalyst for the messed up things she does I didn't find it to be very believable.
Kidman puts on a good show as you'd expect, trying to get past that hair and make-up though... I spent the first 30 minutes getting annoyed by it. I honestly don't know if I'm annoyed because it's bad or annoyed because it feels like they've disfigured Nicole Kidman.
The story is very familiar, a cop's past comes back to haunt them isn't new territory. Kidman takes on a very strong role and I can't deny she put some oomph into it but it's just another sort of okay film. Some less dramatic hair and make-up, a more organised timeline and a little more thought for the bad guy and I think I could have seen myself giving this four stars.
[As an after thought... the guy behind me at the screening kept laughing. Proper comedy gaffawing. I have to guess he was laughing at the violence being over the top because there wasn't anything amusing in it. I've seem films that are worse in that aspect though so I'm really just shrugging my shoulders about it.]
What you should do
There are other films that do much the same as this, but seeing Nicole Kidman as Erin Bell was an eye opener that you might benefit from seeing once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like whatever Nicole Kidman has that makes her naturally look like she's no older that Sebastian Stan.
Days after seeing Destroyer I'm still not any clearer about the whole thing. It almost felt like it had gritty TV crime drama potential but as a film I was a little underwhelmed.
I spent a long time wondering if I had missed something, the ending caused me the following reaction... "wait... oh... huh." I'm not sure that the way it tied itself up worked. It left me a little confused, not because the story didn't make sense but because of the way the film had been organised.
The main character, Erin, takes some pretty extreme measures during the film because of our bad guy. But out bad guy doesn't seem to warrant that behaviour. Sure he's a little nuts but as a catalyst for the messed up things she does I didn't find it to be very believable.
Kidman puts on a good show as you'd expect, trying to get past that hair and make-up though... I spent the first 30 minutes getting annoyed by it. I honestly don't know if I'm annoyed because it's bad or annoyed because it feels like they've disfigured Nicole Kidman.
The story is very familiar, a cop's past comes back to haunt them isn't new territory. Kidman takes on a very strong role and I can't deny she put some oomph into it but it's just another sort of okay film. Some less dramatic hair and make-up, a more organised timeline and a little more thought for the bad guy and I think I could have seen myself giving this four stars.
[As an after thought... the guy behind me at the screening kept laughing. Proper comedy gaffawing. I have to guess he was laughing at the violence being over the top because there wasn't anything amusing in it. I've seem films that are worse in that aspect though so I'm really just shrugging my shoulders about it.]
What you should do
There are other films that do much the same as this, but seeing Nicole Kidman as Erin Bell was an eye opener that you might benefit from seeing once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like whatever Nicole Kidman has that makes her naturally look like she's no older that Sebastian Stan.
ClareR (5911 KP) rated The German House in Books
Dec 30, 2019
The German House is set in Frankfurt in 1963 at the time of the Auschwitz trials. Eva Bruhns is a 24 year old translator, and is asked to translate the testimony of the Polish speaking Jews who were imprisoned at Auschwitz. Eva was a small child during the war, and remembers little of it. She seems to be mostly concerned with her romance and possible engagement to Jürgen Schoorman, a wealthy businessman. However, when David Miller, a Canadian lawyer who is working for the prosecution at the trials, hires Eva as a translator, her world view and her opinion of her parents and the Germans involved in the war, changes. Her parents don’t want to talk about their involvement in the war, and Jürgen doesn’t think that she should be involved in something so distasteful. But this isn’t just a coming of age story. Granted, Eva does grow in this novel. She learns about the collective guilt of the German nation with regards to the Holocaust, and looks at how the children of the war generation reacted to something that was in effect hidden from them. They called it Vergangenheitsbewältigung - the struggle to come to term with and overcome the past. Young Germans wanted to analyse, digest and learn to live with the past, and the Holocaust in particular. Eva can’t understand why her parents will not own up to their share of the guilt.
I really enjoyed this novel. It was hard-going at times, and it did read like a translated novel. It did however, catch the spirit of the time. Eva’s longing to break out of the societal restrictions of the time (for example when she refers to how much she likes a new Beatles song that Jürgen can’t understand, he doesn’t like pop music) and Jürgen’s wish that she stops work as soon as she gets engaged (as a modern woman, I was positively fuming at this point!!).
I was fascinated by the trip the Court makes to Auschwitz - somewhere I’ve never been, and after a trip to Oranienburg (a camp for political prisoners outside Berlin), I feel that I would struggle to go. This was one of the most emotional parts of the book.
The side story involving Eva’s older sister is also fascinating, and I feel portrays the effect of seeing so much violence and hatred as a young child (no spoilers here!).
All in all, after I got used to the writing style, I really enjoyed this. It was an interesting insight into the post-war years, and West Germany’s reaction to the damage and destruction that the Nazis had caused during the Holocaust.
This is well worth a read.
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for my copy of this book to read and honestly review.
I really enjoyed this novel. It was hard-going at times, and it did read like a translated novel. It did however, catch the spirit of the time. Eva’s longing to break out of the societal restrictions of the time (for example when she refers to how much she likes a new Beatles song that Jürgen can’t understand, he doesn’t like pop music) and Jürgen’s wish that she stops work as soon as she gets engaged (as a modern woman, I was positively fuming at this point!!).
I was fascinated by the trip the Court makes to Auschwitz - somewhere I’ve never been, and after a trip to Oranienburg (a camp for political prisoners outside Berlin), I feel that I would struggle to go. This was one of the most emotional parts of the book.
The side story involving Eva’s older sister is also fascinating, and I feel portrays the effect of seeing so much violence and hatred as a young child (no spoilers here!).
All in all, after I got used to the writing style, I really enjoyed this. It was an interesting insight into the post-war years, and West Germany’s reaction to the damage and destruction that the Nazis had caused during the Holocaust.
This is well worth a read.
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for my copy of this book to read and honestly review.
Leah Lopez (7 KP) rated Gone Girl in Books
Nov 6, 2019
This book had many key elements to keep the reader constantly entertained.
1) The characters had their own voice; their own emotions and thoughts which was clearly recognised through per chapter dedicated to them. My mind alternated between which character I liked/hated understood/or not worth understanding. At the beginning of the book I was on Nick's side. It seemed Amy was some "nagging wife" and it would be easy to become annoyed by all her "stupid traditions" but then, I read Amy's side and then I was like..."Okay, now I understand why the traditions are important and how much she loves Nick..." When he come home to find his wife had disappeared and his house looked "ransacked" I began questioning the possible theories to her disappearance. I thought:
S.P.O.I.L.E.R. A.L.E.R.T
She hasn't been taken. She isn't dead. It is all but a set up: to get Nick to realise how much he loves Amy and he be lost without her. I thought she has just gone away for a few days.
My first shock? Nick cheating on Amy
but then; had it been a shock/ plot twist shock, or did I just not want to believe that of him?
It was easy from this point to hate Nick. He had been having an affair, he was violent, he was a liar.
I began siding with Amy.
Still...it became clear through Nick's request on finding out the truth that she too was a liar; but a more-well trained liar and not spontaneous? She was evil; she played people to her needs. She used them to better herself.
Towards the end of the book; when she came back home and reported her "kidnap and rape" from Desi it was here I thought this is going to end pretty shit now...but once again I was surprised. I began to hate Amy and like Nick. Still Nick demonstrated his violence towards Amy by strangling her and detailing his enjoyment of her pulsating struggle for breath. When Amy came back and explained the truth, and furthermore...I wanted her to be arrested; to find that tiny bit of evidence she didn't think of...something none of us would have thought of but maybe read and thought nothing of it at the time. Still, she still had things up her sleeve and still ten steps in front of Nick-the semen and her way of permanently keeping him in her life. I knew it had to end, but I think it would have been more entertaining on something she left out, rather than her once again winning.
Overall:
a great suspense-filled book that makes you yo-yo between liking/hating the characters!
Will be looking for more books written by her!
1) The characters had their own voice; their own emotions and thoughts which was clearly recognised through per chapter dedicated to them. My mind alternated between which character I liked/hated understood/or not worth understanding. At the beginning of the book I was on Nick's side. It seemed Amy was some "nagging wife" and it would be easy to become annoyed by all her "stupid traditions" but then, I read Amy's side and then I was like..."Okay, now I understand why the traditions are important and how much she loves Nick..." When he come home to find his wife had disappeared and his house looked "ransacked" I began questioning the possible theories to her disappearance. I thought:
S.P.O.I.L.E.R. A.L.E.R.T
She hasn't been taken. She isn't dead. It is all but a set up: to get Nick to realise how much he loves Amy and he be lost without her. I thought she has just gone away for a few days.
My first shock? Nick cheating on Amy
but then; had it been a shock/ plot twist shock, or did I just not want to believe that of him?
It was easy from this point to hate Nick. He had been having an affair, he was violent, he was a liar.
I began siding with Amy.
Still...it became clear through Nick's request on finding out the truth that she too was a liar; but a more-well trained liar and not spontaneous? She was evil; she played people to her needs. She used them to better herself.
Towards the end of the book; when she came back home and reported her "kidnap and rape" from Desi it was here I thought this is going to end pretty shit now...but once again I was surprised. I began to hate Amy and like Nick. Still Nick demonstrated his violence towards Amy by strangling her and detailing his enjoyment of her pulsating struggle for breath. When Amy came back and explained the truth, and furthermore...I wanted her to be arrested; to find that tiny bit of evidence she didn't think of...something none of us would have thought of but maybe read and thought nothing of it at the time. Still, she still had things up her sleeve and still ten steps in front of Nick-the semen and her way of permanently keeping him in her life. I knew it had to end, but I think it would have been more entertaining on something she left out, rather than her once again winning.
Overall:
a great suspense-filled book that makes you yo-yo between liking/hating the characters!
Will be looking for more books written by her!