Search
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Ambrose Beacon (The Solas Prophecy, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted at <a title="The Ambrose Beacon by Alena Gouveia" href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/11/review-the-ambrose-beacon-by-alena-gouveia.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts<a/>
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste, along with pictures and captions
<i><b>Disclaimer:</b> Review copy provided by author for review</i>
Let me blunt about The Ambrose Beacon: it was boring. It also became the third unfortunate book that lands into my DNF list and the first fantasy book oh wait. Not exactly the first... does the Caster Chronicles count as Fantasy, or does it count as Paranormal? If it counts as paranormal, then The Ambrose Beacon became the unfortunate first fantasy book I didn't finish.
So essentially, I give fair warning: I rated and reviewed it based on what I could manage to read so far. Which, I think I was being a bit lenient about, but I didn't throw the book against the wall, so it certainly didn't deserve a lower rating.
Now allow me to tell why I found it boring, and my general thoughts on it:
Larry and Jerry. They sound so similar (they rhyme as well), that I was befuddled and mistakenly read Jerry as Larry and vice-versa when it was really the other way around. They're best friends and one of them is the main character. How confusing can that get?
The characters don't seem to be in depth. While I get the why for Harper and Arianna, the other characters simply seem virtually pancake-like (no offense). Add to the fact that it suddenly switches POVs without some sort of sign. One minute it's Cole, the next? Dinah, Jerry, Harper, Vaughn, etc. >_<
Fairies. Probably one of my favorite things to read about, and it's not because they're sparkly and pretty and whatnot. But I was actually interested in Gouveia's take on fairies when the word was
mentioned in the earliest parts of the book.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be well written, nor realistic. I mean, doing magic in public. In front of human eyewitnesses. That doesn't sound like the typical faery to me that tries to not let the human world find out about them because then it's all, "IT'S THE APOCALYPSE. I must be seeing things," or maybe, "HOLY MONKEYS. FAIRIES EXIST" *rubs eyes to make sure it's not an illusion.* But the fairies here seem like a bounce off of Fantastic Four (even though I haven't watched the movie). More like superheroes than the sidhe.
The same thing is repeated, but in different variations. Oh hooray. Demons, demons and more demons. Same kind of demon, which isn't a problem for me, but the very fact that they tend to be doing the same thing over and over and over again throughout the entire book, which is the main reason why I stopped (I really did stop at exactly 50%). There's not a lot going on, although maybe if I had the time and gave the book further chances, there might be other things going on rather than "OMG, THERE'S A DEMON THAT WANTS MY HEAD ON A PLATTER. RUN." (or in the case here, it's fight to the death.)
Generally I like fantasy. I love the creative worlds and character and creatures made up that gives me a free ticket to travel okay, that applies to any book really without having to move a single inch, and the very fact that you can't exactly buy a plane ticket to the area in the first place. Someone tell me if we can really buy a plane ticket to the Faery Realms if you so disagree on that fact. Of course... I wouldn't exactly try and mess with fairies in the first place.
I tried liking the story. I thought first thought it was because of reading The Jungle, which is dreadfully boring, and it may have influenced my thoughts on this one. Then I read Allegiant for awhile and came back to it. It didn't work out well either (and Allegiant didn't bore me).
So simply put, The Ambrose Beacon is not really my cup of tea.
*eats a biscuit and avoids unsweetened tea*
I really hate giving bad reviews. Especially DNFs.
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste, along with pictures and captions
<i><b>Disclaimer:</b> Review copy provided by author for review</i>
Let me blunt about The Ambrose Beacon: it was boring. It also became the third unfortunate book that lands into my DNF list and the first fantasy book oh wait. Not exactly the first... does the Caster Chronicles count as Fantasy, or does it count as Paranormal? If it counts as paranormal, then The Ambrose Beacon became the unfortunate first fantasy book I didn't finish.
So essentially, I give fair warning: I rated and reviewed it based on what I could manage to read so far. Which, I think I was being a bit lenient about, but I didn't throw the book against the wall, so it certainly didn't deserve a lower rating.
Now allow me to tell why I found it boring, and my general thoughts on it:
Larry and Jerry. They sound so similar (they rhyme as well), that I was befuddled and mistakenly read Jerry as Larry and vice-versa when it was really the other way around. They're best friends and one of them is the main character. How confusing can that get?
The characters don't seem to be in depth. While I get the why for Harper and Arianna, the other characters simply seem virtually pancake-like (no offense). Add to the fact that it suddenly switches POVs without some sort of sign. One minute it's Cole, the next? Dinah, Jerry, Harper, Vaughn, etc. >_<
Fairies. Probably one of my favorite things to read about, and it's not because they're sparkly and pretty and whatnot. But I was actually interested in Gouveia's take on fairies when the word was
mentioned in the earliest parts of the book.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be well written, nor realistic. I mean, doing magic in public. In front of human eyewitnesses. That doesn't sound like the typical faery to me that tries to not let the human world find out about them because then it's all, "IT'S THE APOCALYPSE. I must be seeing things," or maybe, "HOLY MONKEYS. FAIRIES EXIST" *rubs eyes to make sure it's not an illusion.* But the fairies here seem like a bounce off of Fantastic Four (even though I haven't watched the movie). More like superheroes than the sidhe.
The same thing is repeated, but in different variations. Oh hooray. Demons, demons and more demons. Same kind of demon, which isn't a problem for me, but the very fact that they tend to be doing the same thing over and over and over again throughout the entire book, which is the main reason why I stopped (I really did stop at exactly 50%). There's not a lot going on, although maybe if I had the time and gave the book further chances, there might be other things going on rather than "OMG, THERE'S A DEMON THAT WANTS MY HEAD ON A PLATTER. RUN." (or in the case here, it's fight to the death.)
Generally I like fantasy. I love the creative worlds and character and creatures made up that gives me a free ticket to travel okay, that applies to any book really without having to move a single inch, and the very fact that you can't exactly buy a plane ticket to the area in the first place. Someone tell me if we can really buy a plane ticket to the Faery Realms if you so disagree on that fact. Of course... I wouldn't exactly try and mess with fairies in the first place.
I tried liking the story. I thought first thought it was because of reading The Jungle, which is dreadfully boring, and it may have influenced my thoughts on this one. Then I read Allegiant for awhile and came back to it. It didn't work out well either (and Allegiant didn't bore me).
So simply put, The Ambrose Beacon is not really my cup of tea.
*eats a biscuit and avoids unsweetened tea*
I really hate giving bad reviews. Especially DNFs.
Lose Weight Hypnosis
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
◉ Learn to enjoy healthy food and exercise after listening daily for just 1–3 weeks ◉ Change...
PES CLUB MANAGER
Games and Entertainment
App
The "PES" soccer simulation game has been played by more than 25 million users around the globe....
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Good Kind of Bad in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Firstly Id like to thank Netgalley and Rita Brassington for the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
<b>3.5 stars!
<i>Secrets don't stay secret for long.</i></b>
This was definitely slow to start. After getting into my last read almost instantly <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1637742966">;(All The Ugly and Wonderful Things)</a> this one didnt seem like it was going to be my cup of tea, but after I got to around the 20% mark things started getting a little more interesting. I did enjoy reading this book, it was a much lighter read than my previous so it was nice to not really feel anything <b>I really do mean that in the nicest way possible btw!</b> For me, this book was an easy & quick read that was entertaining but just a little bit OTT. I think this book has a lot of cliches, all very predictable, things I guessed rather easily and so if it hadnt been for that, this would have probably been rated higher, but I prefer books that challenge and shock me.
Another problem I had with this book was that I felt like there are whole chunks of time missing from the story that either really could have helped with character and plot development or could have been explained better so we realised it had disappeared before our eyes... <spoiler>eg. she runs to Ninas apartment (which she says is only a short distance), sees Nina die, then runs away to the police station, stays outside for a little bit pondering what she should do (and obviously she doesnt choose the right thing) then ends up a cafe, only for Evan to walk in a claim shes been gone hours? Like where the <i>heck</i> did all those hours go?</spoiler>
Everything in this book was <i>massively</i> over the top. Ive said before in a review that books are supposed to take you away from everything and land you into something fictional and exciting. But there does get a point where things become too fictional. The crazy storyline wouldnt have mattered so much if it wasnt for the fact that all the characters were completely unrealistic people.
However the biggest downfall for this book was the characters. To love a book, youve got to love the characters, and I didnt.
Our main lady (we never find out her first name) of the book was beyond irritating. I felt like every single little thing she did was the wrong thing. She faced some really awful stuff throughout the book and then went about sorting it out in all the wrongs ways! She wanted you to think she was a high class, intelligent, independant lady, but in actual fact she was airheaded, weak and damn right ridiculous. What annoyed me most about her was the fact that she was ready to believe <i>anyone.</i> She knew all the people in this book for 3 months tops and she always just believed what they said, no questions asked. <spoiler>Also no questions asked as to why Evan was calling her honey & baby all of a sudden!</spoiler>
As for Joe, its pretty obvious why you wouldnt like him. Hes a cock from the start of the relationship, I dont understand what she saw in him to begin with to be honest.
Then theres Evan, the good guy cop who comes to save the damsel in distress how predictable he is. Hes the easiest character to work out in the world of fictional characters. I mean cmon, there was no mystery to him at all.
After all my complaining, this was still an enjoyable read for me. It wasn't one of those books I try and force myself to read just to finish it, I actually wanted to find out what was happening. I will say that I <b>hadnt</b> predicted the <i>ending</i> ending. I had predicted most of what was going to happen but there were elements I hadnt been expecting. Thats definitely what gave it the extra point 5 of a star, otherwise it would have just remained a mediocre 3 stars. I would recommend this to people who like fast paced thrillers. I think this is the perfect holiday book!
<b>3.5 stars!
<i>Secrets don't stay secret for long.</i></b>
This was definitely slow to start. After getting into my last read almost instantly <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1637742966">;(All The Ugly and Wonderful Things)</a> this one didnt seem like it was going to be my cup of tea, but after I got to around the 20% mark things started getting a little more interesting. I did enjoy reading this book, it was a much lighter read than my previous so it was nice to not really feel anything <b>I really do mean that in the nicest way possible btw!</b> For me, this book was an easy & quick read that was entertaining but just a little bit OTT. I think this book has a lot of cliches, all very predictable, things I guessed rather easily and so if it hadnt been for that, this would have probably been rated higher, but I prefer books that challenge and shock me.
Another problem I had with this book was that I felt like there are whole chunks of time missing from the story that either really could have helped with character and plot development or could have been explained better so we realised it had disappeared before our eyes... <spoiler>eg. she runs to Ninas apartment (which she says is only a short distance), sees Nina die, then runs away to the police station, stays outside for a little bit pondering what she should do (and obviously she doesnt choose the right thing) then ends up a cafe, only for Evan to walk in a claim shes been gone hours? Like where the <i>heck</i> did all those hours go?</spoiler>
Everything in this book was <i>massively</i> over the top. Ive said before in a review that books are supposed to take you away from everything and land you into something fictional and exciting. But there does get a point where things become too fictional. The crazy storyline wouldnt have mattered so much if it wasnt for the fact that all the characters were completely unrealistic people.
However the biggest downfall for this book was the characters. To love a book, youve got to love the characters, and I didnt.
Our main lady (we never find out her first name) of the book was beyond irritating. I felt like every single little thing she did was the wrong thing. She faced some really awful stuff throughout the book and then went about sorting it out in all the wrongs ways! She wanted you to think she was a high class, intelligent, independant lady, but in actual fact she was airheaded, weak and damn right ridiculous. What annoyed me most about her was the fact that she was ready to believe <i>anyone.</i> She knew all the people in this book for 3 months tops and she always just believed what they said, no questions asked. <spoiler>Also no questions asked as to why Evan was calling her honey & baby all of a sudden!</spoiler>
As for Joe, its pretty obvious why you wouldnt like him. Hes a cock from the start of the relationship, I dont understand what she saw in him to begin with to be honest.
Then theres Evan, the good guy cop who comes to save the damsel in distress how predictable he is. Hes the easiest character to work out in the world of fictional characters. I mean cmon, there was no mystery to him at all.
After all my complaining, this was still an enjoyable read for me. It wasn't one of those books I try and force myself to read just to finish it, I actually wanted to find out what was happening. I will say that I <b>hadnt</b> predicted the <i>ending</i> ending. I had predicted most of what was going to happen but there were elements I hadnt been expecting. Thats definitely what gave it the extra point 5 of a star, otherwise it would have just remained a mediocre 3 stars. I would recommend this to people who like fast paced thrillers. I think this is the perfect holiday book!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated By The Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have yet another film that strays from ‘the norm’. A film that not only stars one of the most beloved celebrity couples on the planet but also harkens back to the Italian dramatic films of the late 1960s/early 70s. It most definitely qualifies as an ‘art house’ film.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Tempestuous (Twisted Lit #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog, <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>, in September).
I read Exposure (Twisted Lit #2) first (review up in a couple of days), and while I enjoyed that one better, Tempestuous is still a good read. I can't comment on how much alike it is to The Tempest by Shakespeare because I've never read that play by Shakespeare.
Miranda Prospero used to be a popular girl, but after one of her ideas gets people in trouble, she becomes a social pariah. One night, while working at the hot dog stand in the mall, there's a horrible snowstorm, and everyoen is locked in the mall overnight including Miranda and her former friends and ex-boyfriend. As she plots revenge against them, there's also a series of break-ins going on at the mall. It doesn't take long for Miranda to realize that the thief is also locked in the mall. Miranda must learn what's important or else she may be in more trouble.
I love the cover! I love how plain it is, yet how artistic it is at the same time. The colors go together really well, and I love the little soda cup on the cover.
The title is fantastic because not only is this a retelling of The Tempest by Shakespeare, but it also describes the weather in the book as well as Miranda's life at the moment.
I thought the world building was alright and the setting fantastic. I've always wondered what it would be like to be stuck in a mall. I'd probably hate it, but I'd like to imagine it'd be like what Miranda's night was like. I just kind of found it hard to believe that people would just go into any closed shop willy nilly for supplies and loot. I also found it kind of hard to believe that key holders would just open their shops for people. I would've loved to have more back story on Miranda's fall from grace. I would've liked the book to open up with her being part of the popular crowd, and then read about her incident that lead her to be a social outcast, followed by the story I just read. Yes, it would make a longer book, but I think I would've found that super interesting.
The pacing is alright in this book. I didn't devour this book so to speak. I wasn't bored with it, and the pacing is by no means slow, I just didn't get as interested in it as I have with other books.
I like the whole plot about being stuck in a mall and wondering what's going to happen that night. There are many subplots like how Miranda reacts to her former friends and ex-boyfriend, her love life, her friendships and other decisions. I like how there was also the subplot involving a thief locked inside the mall with everyone. I must admit that I was trying to find out who the thief was (and getting it wrong) throughout the book. I only realized who the thief was when Miranda did.
I felt that the characters were written well. I could totally understand about Miranda wanting revenge on those who shamed her and bullied her. I'm not condoning revenge by no means, but I could relate to that feeling. I loved how down to Earth Miranda seemed and how much she cared for people. Caleb came across as being a little bit of a dork, but that's what I loved about him! His dorkiness was actually kind of cute! I also loved how Chad was athletic, but the authors didn't make him out to be some brainless jock. Chad was actually a very sweet and caring guy, and I loved him. My favorite character was Ariel though. I loved her naivety and innocence. I loved how she seemed to find beauty in everything. I just wanted to hug Ariel a lot throughout the book.
I enjoyed the dialogue. None of it felt forced which was good. Everything flowed smoothly, and I found myself even laughing at some of the dialogue (because it was meant to be funny, not because it was bad or anything). There are a few swear words in the book, but nothing major.
Overall, Tempestuous is a fun story that lets you live a night being stuck in a mall with it's likable characters, great dialogue and interesting plot.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who want to read something with characters that they can relate to.
I'd give Tempestuous (Twisted Lit #1) by Kim Askew & Amy Helmes a 3.75 out of 5.
(I received this book for free from the authors for a giveaway. I was not required to write a review).
I read Exposure (Twisted Lit #2) first (review up in a couple of days), and while I enjoyed that one better, Tempestuous is still a good read. I can't comment on how much alike it is to The Tempest by Shakespeare because I've never read that play by Shakespeare.
Miranda Prospero used to be a popular girl, but after one of her ideas gets people in trouble, she becomes a social pariah. One night, while working at the hot dog stand in the mall, there's a horrible snowstorm, and everyoen is locked in the mall overnight including Miranda and her former friends and ex-boyfriend. As she plots revenge against them, there's also a series of break-ins going on at the mall. It doesn't take long for Miranda to realize that the thief is also locked in the mall. Miranda must learn what's important or else she may be in more trouble.
I love the cover! I love how plain it is, yet how artistic it is at the same time. The colors go together really well, and I love the little soda cup on the cover.
The title is fantastic because not only is this a retelling of The Tempest by Shakespeare, but it also describes the weather in the book as well as Miranda's life at the moment.
I thought the world building was alright and the setting fantastic. I've always wondered what it would be like to be stuck in a mall. I'd probably hate it, but I'd like to imagine it'd be like what Miranda's night was like. I just kind of found it hard to believe that people would just go into any closed shop willy nilly for supplies and loot. I also found it kind of hard to believe that key holders would just open their shops for people. I would've loved to have more back story on Miranda's fall from grace. I would've liked the book to open up with her being part of the popular crowd, and then read about her incident that lead her to be a social outcast, followed by the story I just read. Yes, it would make a longer book, but I think I would've found that super interesting.
The pacing is alright in this book. I didn't devour this book so to speak. I wasn't bored with it, and the pacing is by no means slow, I just didn't get as interested in it as I have with other books.
I like the whole plot about being stuck in a mall and wondering what's going to happen that night. There are many subplots like how Miranda reacts to her former friends and ex-boyfriend, her love life, her friendships and other decisions. I like how there was also the subplot involving a thief locked inside the mall with everyone. I must admit that I was trying to find out who the thief was (and getting it wrong) throughout the book. I only realized who the thief was when Miranda did.
I felt that the characters were written well. I could totally understand about Miranda wanting revenge on those who shamed her and bullied her. I'm not condoning revenge by no means, but I could relate to that feeling. I loved how down to Earth Miranda seemed and how much she cared for people. Caleb came across as being a little bit of a dork, but that's what I loved about him! His dorkiness was actually kind of cute! I also loved how Chad was athletic, but the authors didn't make him out to be some brainless jock. Chad was actually a very sweet and caring guy, and I loved him. My favorite character was Ariel though. I loved her naivety and innocence. I loved how she seemed to find beauty in everything. I just wanted to hug Ariel a lot throughout the book.
I enjoyed the dialogue. None of it felt forced which was good. Everything flowed smoothly, and I found myself even laughing at some of the dialogue (because it was meant to be funny, not because it was bad or anything). There are a few swear words in the book, but nothing major.
Overall, Tempestuous is a fun story that lets you live a night being stuck in a mall with it's likable characters, great dialogue and interesting plot.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who want to read something with characters that they can relate to.
I'd give Tempestuous (Twisted Lit #1) by Kim Askew & Amy Helmes a 3.75 out of 5.
(I received this book for free from the authors for a giveaway. I was not required to write a review).
Lorey L. (3 KP) rated The Hazel Wood in Books
Mar 7, 2018
Loved! Would recommend for fans of chilling fairytales.
Immediately after finishing Albert's dark tale, I took to Goodread's knowing other's had been left with the same tingly sensation of bloody good wrongness. Unfortunately, I found for many this was not the case. The story was dark, creepy and had all the good bad things that make you listen too closely at bumps and stare too intensely at shadows.
First, the writing is completely breathtaking. The imagery in Albert's style is superb. It made me want to wrap up in a blanket with a hot cup of tea and a roaring fire and wish for her words to never end.
With that being said, I did find that at times it could get a little thick and hard to sludge through, but for me, that was infrequent enough to not give me too much of a bother. I felt there was a lot of backstory that could have been told in a more fluid manner, but nevertheless, it was (mostly) needed backstory.
The world Albert created in Hinterland... I need more. If more/most of the story had taken place in the Hinterland, I feel it would have been closer to 5 stars. But, being mostly set in New York it did still leave the storyline curious and mysterious enough to lure you in if given half a chance.
Secondly, the characters are... horrible and good and missing things. Personally, once I figured out who Alice was, I understood why she was written the way she was (more on that in a bit). Unfortunately, I felt most characters, outside of Alice, were mostly one-dimensional. More fully fleshed out and I may have found myself falling a little in love Finch, desperately wanting to know Ella, or even more curious about the mysterious Althea. They just needed a little... more.
Thirdly, the artwork. Oh good Lord in Heaven, I am in love with the cover art of this book. Dark and shiny and filled with images that beg to be understood. Jim Tierney should be praised almost as much as the author for lending the right mindset for this dark story.
Further, my favorite parts of this book were by far the snippets of Althea's Hinterland Stories. Even if you don't like the book- you will LOVE these stories. They are the perfect amounts of creepy, mysterious, weird, and wonderful.
Finally, a more in-depth look. I'd like to begin with Alice. I feel it's not that her character is "misunderstood" but that she is almost too understood. Mean, angry, violent. With little too no explanation for her outbursts... Except for the simple fact that many readers seem not to care about (and understandably, to a degree. She's not the most likable person). She was spun that way. With an icy core she is unable to control, a darkness she fears.
**"I'd let myself drift too close to the dark continent at the core of me, a lawless place I tried never to visit."**
*SPOILER* Alice Three Times is basically the villain of a dark fairytale. She is made up of rage and ice and blackness. The fact Ella helps her control it even a little is amazing. Understanding this allowed me to view Alice in a different way than I had other heroines. She was, in the end, simply trying to become an ex-Story. To try and be the normal girl she never had the chance of being. *END SPOILER* This made her annoying, unexplained, angry outbursts easier to understand and accept,
for me.
Finch, the only character we know to be a person of color (note: many characters within the book, as previously mentioned, are far from being fully-fleshed out. For most, ethnicity isn't even mentioned), is nerdy and verging-on-fierce, but kind-of, off-putting in some instances. For example, because he is such a "fan" there are several times he ignores the fact that he is making Alice uncomfortable, and especially *SPOILER* when he basically sells her to the Hinterland Stories for entry to their land*END SPOILER*
*SPOILER*I also wanted to quickly talk about the confrontation with the police that leads Finch to try and explain why he's mad, which in turn leads to Alice acting very Story-ish. I felt for Finch in a big way here. I was angry with her stupid, selfish reaction as well. I applauded him for standing up for her and got annoyed that she acted so irrationally and privileged. But, I realized after reading the section through again, Alice is not a person. She is a Story. And although she was raised a human, her "ice core" sometimes ruled her actions more than her mind- which seemed to agree with Finch, even though her actions, words, and anger said otherwise:
**"...You think rich matters in this situation? You think a cop looks at me and sees <i>rich?</i> You're pretending you don't get it, but you do."
<b>I did get it, I did. And the shame of it boiled into something darker.</b> Before my brain could catch up, I jerked the wheel and turned the car off the road, sending us rattling toward the trees."** *END SPOILER*
This isn't a book for everyone. I enjoy reading both the positive and negative reviews, as they shed new light on different aspects of the story! I loved it and I can't wait for Melissa Albert's book of Hinterland Stories- and maybe even a second Hazel Wood! If you do choose to give this book a try, go in with an open mind... and maybe a light on.
First, the writing is completely breathtaking. The imagery in Albert's style is superb. It made me want to wrap up in a blanket with a hot cup of tea and a roaring fire and wish for her words to never end.
With that being said, I did find that at times it could get a little thick and hard to sludge through, but for me, that was infrequent enough to not give me too much of a bother. I felt there was a lot of backstory that could have been told in a more fluid manner, but nevertheless, it was (mostly) needed backstory.
The world Albert created in Hinterland... I need more. If more/most of the story had taken place in the Hinterland, I feel it would have been closer to 5 stars. But, being mostly set in New York it did still leave the storyline curious and mysterious enough to lure you in if given half a chance.
Secondly, the characters are... horrible and good and missing things. Personally, once I figured out who Alice was, I understood why she was written the way she was (more on that in a bit). Unfortunately, I felt most characters, outside of Alice, were mostly one-dimensional. More fully fleshed out and I may have found myself falling a little in love Finch, desperately wanting to know Ella, or even more curious about the mysterious Althea. They just needed a little... more.
Thirdly, the artwork. Oh good Lord in Heaven, I am in love with the cover art of this book. Dark and shiny and filled with images that beg to be understood. Jim Tierney should be praised almost as much as the author for lending the right mindset for this dark story.
Further, my favorite parts of this book were by far the snippets of Althea's Hinterland Stories. Even if you don't like the book- you will LOVE these stories. They are the perfect amounts of creepy, mysterious, weird, and wonderful.
Finally, a more in-depth look. I'd like to begin with Alice. I feel it's not that her character is "misunderstood" but that she is almost too understood. Mean, angry, violent. With little too no explanation for her outbursts... Except for the simple fact that many readers seem not to care about (and understandably, to a degree. She's not the most likable person). She was spun that way. With an icy core she is unable to control, a darkness she fears.
**"I'd let myself drift too close to the dark continent at the core of me, a lawless place I tried never to visit."**
*SPOILER* Alice Three Times is basically the villain of a dark fairytale. She is made up of rage and ice and blackness. The fact Ella helps her control it even a little is amazing. Understanding this allowed me to view Alice in a different way than I had other heroines. She was, in the end, simply trying to become an ex-Story. To try and be the normal girl she never had the chance of being. *END SPOILER* This made her annoying, unexplained, angry outbursts easier to understand and accept,
for me.
Finch, the only character we know to be a person of color (note: many characters within the book, as previously mentioned, are far from being fully-fleshed out. For most, ethnicity isn't even mentioned), is nerdy and verging-on-fierce, but kind-of, off-putting in some instances. For example, because he is such a "fan" there are several times he ignores the fact that he is making Alice uncomfortable, and especially *SPOILER* when he basically sells her to the Hinterland Stories for entry to their land*END SPOILER*
*SPOILER*I also wanted to quickly talk about the confrontation with the police that leads Finch to try and explain why he's mad, which in turn leads to Alice acting very Story-ish. I felt for Finch in a big way here. I was angry with her stupid, selfish reaction as well. I applauded him for standing up for her and got annoyed that she acted so irrationally and privileged. But, I realized after reading the section through again, Alice is not a person. She is a Story. And although she was raised a human, her "ice core" sometimes ruled her actions more than her mind- which seemed to agree with Finch, even though her actions, words, and anger said otherwise:
**"...You think rich matters in this situation? You think a cop looks at me and sees <i>rich?</i> You're pretending you don't get it, but you do."
<b>I did get it, I did. And the shame of it boiled into something darker.</b> Before my brain could catch up, I jerked the wheel and turned the car off the road, sending us rattling toward the trees."** *END SPOILER*
This isn't a book for everyone. I enjoy reading both the positive and negative reviews, as they shed new light on different aspects of the story! I loved it and I can't wait for Melissa Albert's book of Hinterland Stories- and maybe even a second Hazel Wood! If you do choose to give this book a try, go in with an open mind... and maybe a light on.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Dracula was written by author Bram Stoker during the late 1890's and is set around the character of Dracula and his attempt to move from Transylvania to England so he can spread the curse of the undead (I.e. the creation of more vampires). English solicitor Jonathan Harker who'd originally gone to Transylvania to be legal aide for Dracula stops him with the help of Van Helsing and others which ends the life of one of them – Quincey-, the book ends with a note from Jonathan Harker that several people lived happily married and Jonathan has a son nicknamed for Quincey.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Loki - Season 1 in TV
Jul 16, 2021 (Updated Jul 16, 2021)
I’ll stick with Loki’s original story-arc.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Loki, featuring the return of Tom Hiddleston to the MCU, has escaped with the tesseract, and is subsequently caught by the TVA. He agrees to help Owen Wilson’s Mobius track down a variant that is conveniently a version of himself. What ensues is a painful setup for Ironman with Magic… oh, sorry, Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.