Search
Ross (3284 KP) rated A Little Hatred in Books
Oct 1, 2019
The latest instalment in the world of the First Law is the start of Abercrombie's new series - The Age of Madness. The story take place some 30 years after the events of the First Law trilogy, and we are deep into that world's industrial revolution. Across the Union, tradesmen are being rendered obsolete by technological advancement. Savine dan Glokta, the daughter of the shining, shitty star of the First Law trilogy, has made her fortune by investing in such innovations and mercilessly milking their genius inventors for every mark of profit. Half of the story follows her on a trip to oversee the running of one of her investments, a trip which soon descends into riot, hostage-taking and a general shit-storm.
The rest of the story takes place in the North, where those Northmen are, once more, kicking up a fuss and trying to reclaim their land from the Union. These chapters focus on Rikke, the dogman's daughter, and Leo dan Brock, the Young Lion, as they fight against Black Calder and his crew.
Yes, this really is "First Law: The Next Generation". With very few exceptions, the main characters here are all the descendants of characters from the previous trilogy. What I couldn't quite come to terms with was the fact that Caul Shivers and Bremer dan Gorst seemed to have aged significantly less than I might have expected (based purely on my impression of their ages in the earlier books and other characters now).
The battle with the Northmen was pretty much a boiled-down version of the Heroes, and not all that enjoyable. Rikke was a new feature which just about saved this from utter tedium.
There was one exceptional scene revolving around the riot that Savine found herself in. This scene changed from one perspective to another seamlessly, truly like a scene from a film. This long chapter was so engaging and immersive I couldn't leave it unfinished.
Abercrombie's writing and dialogue once again shine through as top of the class.
However, what held the book back for me were the pace of the opening third (so much character introduction and yet so much of it is left to the reader based on the previous books), and the bulk of the chapters in the North. The rest of the book really felt new and exciting and thrilling, those sections really just felt like old hat.
The rest of the story takes place in the North, where those Northmen are, once more, kicking up a fuss and trying to reclaim their land from the Union. These chapters focus on Rikke, the dogman's daughter, and Leo dan Brock, the Young Lion, as they fight against Black Calder and his crew.
Yes, this really is "First Law: The Next Generation". With very few exceptions, the main characters here are all the descendants of characters from the previous trilogy. What I couldn't quite come to terms with was the fact that Caul Shivers and Bremer dan Gorst seemed to have aged significantly less than I might have expected (based purely on my impression of their ages in the earlier books and other characters now).
The battle with the Northmen was pretty much a boiled-down version of the Heroes, and not all that enjoyable. Rikke was a new feature which just about saved this from utter tedium.
There was one exceptional scene revolving around the riot that Savine found herself in. This scene changed from one perspective to another seamlessly, truly like a scene from a film. This long chapter was so engaging and immersive I couldn't leave it unfinished.
Abercrombie's writing and dialogue once again shine through as top of the class.
However, what held the book back for me were the pace of the opening third (so much character introduction and yet so much of it is left to the reader based on the previous books), and the bulk of the chapters in the North. The rest of the book really felt new and exciting and thrilling, those sections really just felt like old hat.
Tennis Camera
Sports
App
*** BEFORE BUYING CHECK IF YOUR DEVICE IS SUPPORTED!!! *** Supported Devices: iPhone 5 iPhone...
Ophthalmology: The Official Journal of the AAO
Medical and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Ophthalmology Ophthalmology, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field and the official...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Dec 6, 2017
Not as Bad as the Critics Said
Passengers works for me largely in part due to the great chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. Their relationship is believable, real. Exactly what I would expect from two people stuck in a space paradise together. I try to avoid words like "sizzle" and "spice" when describing onscreen pairings, but it's 7:30pm on a Tuesday night and I have folded clothes to put away. So....Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence absolutely sizzle onscreen together! Free from the inhibitions of watching eyes the duo adds real spice to the film's flavor. Yep, that just happened. No regrets. Yolo.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Gone Girl (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Let me start by saying that the novel Gone Girl is a fantastic piece of literature. Author Gillian Flynn writes a wickedly deceptive story through the use of characterization and voice that is not only a rousing read, but also a gripping one that allows the reader to understand just exactly who the players are in this thrilling story.
With this in mind, I was concerned that there was no way this film could capture the dark side of the characters and the story being told. I am glad to say that I was wrong. While the typical statement of “the book is better” does apply here, director David Fincher crafts a film that audiences will be able to understand and fill in the blanks of the devious motivations of the characters based on what is seen on screen. This is a refreshing theater experience as I feel that most novel adaptations often lead to lazy filmmaking that assumes the audience is familiar with the source material. Perhaps Fincher is helped by the fact that Gillian Flynn herself wrote the screen adaptation of her novel, keeping the most important elements in play.
Ben Affleck plays Nick Dunne, an introspective “nice” guy who finds himself the primary suspect in the missing persons/murder investigation of his wife Amy, played by Rosamund Pike. The two shine in their performances. They each took their characters from the pages of the book, breathed life into them and embodied Nick and Amy on screen. Combine them with a strong supporting cast of Carrie Coon, Kim Dickens, Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry, who gave performances that were neither lost nor forgettable. This is important as each are needed to provide contrast to the main characters and propel the story forward.
Though this film is not perfect, if there is any one gripe I have about this movie, it’s that a simple line of missed dialogue may cause the theater patron to miss something important to the story, such as the significance of the woodshed. However this is a small gripe as I feel that the pacing of the film and the constant advancement of the story will keep most patrons’ attention and keep them interested in the destiny of the characters.
If you are a reader, I would recommend reading the book first to get into the minds of the characters and truly feel the thrill of this story. However, if you haven’t the time or just don’t like to read, you won’t be disappointed with this strong film adaptation.
With this in mind, I was concerned that there was no way this film could capture the dark side of the characters and the story being told. I am glad to say that I was wrong. While the typical statement of “the book is better” does apply here, director David Fincher crafts a film that audiences will be able to understand and fill in the blanks of the devious motivations of the characters based on what is seen on screen. This is a refreshing theater experience as I feel that most novel adaptations often lead to lazy filmmaking that assumes the audience is familiar with the source material. Perhaps Fincher is helped by the fact that Gillian Flynn herself wrote the screen adaptation of her novel, keeping the most important elements in play.
Ben Affleck plays Nick Dunne, an introspective “nice” guy who finds himself the primary suspect in the missing persons/murder investigation of his wife Amy, played by Rosamund Pike. The two shine in their performances. They each took their characters from the pages of the book, breathed life into them and embodied Nick and Amy on screen. Combine them with a strong supporting cast of Carrie Coon, Kim Dickens, Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry, who gave performances that were neither lost nor forgettable. This is important as each are needed to provide contrast to the main characters and propel the story forward.
Though this film is not perfect, if there is any one gripe I have about this movie, it’s that a simple line of missed dialogue may cause the theater patron to miss something important to the story, such as the significance of the woodshed. However this is a small gripe as I feel that the pacing of the film and the constant advancement of the story will keep most patrons’ attention and keep them interested in the destiny of the characters.
If you are a reader, I would recommend reading the book first to get into the minds of the characters and truly feel the thrill of this story. However, if you haven’t the time or just don’t like to read, you won’t be disappointed with this strong film adaptation.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Drag Me to Hell (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Christine Brown seems to have everything going well for her at this point in her life. She has a boyfriend who cares about her and loves her unconditionally, a great job at the bank as a loan officer with more than enough room for advancement in the company, and speaking of, it's between her and one other employee for the vacant assistant manager position. One day though, a strange looking gypsy shows up at Christine's bank asking for another extension before they foreclose on her home. After talking it over with her boss, it's up to Christine to decide on approving the loan and she comes to the conclusion of denying it. Mrs. Ganush begs and pleads with Christine, but Christine won't budge on her decision. After feeling like Christine wronged her by denying her pleas, Mrs. Ganush puts a curse on her and unless Christine can find some sort of loophole, she'll be going to hell in three days.
This is Sam Raimi's return to the horror genre, in case you hadn't heard that in the trailer or anything else promoting the film. Drag Me To Hell has already had such an overwhelmingly positive response when it comes to feedback and the truth of the matter is that the film is genuinely that entertaining. Not only did Sam Raimi return to the horror genre, but he did it so flawlessly and without missing a beat. He's on top of his game and, dare I say, the best he's ever been. The film only seemed to get better as it progressed. It's somehow capable of combining comedy, suspense, romance, and horror all into one amazing final product. A film that can do something like make you laugh out loud one minute, scare you the next, gross you out after that, and tear at your heartstrings is something special. And it's not like the film does that one time and calls it quits. It goes through that cycle (laugh, scare, gross, heartwarming) over and over again throughout the film. Sam Raimi has struck cinematic gold.
Drag Me To Hell is a hell of a lot of fun. It truly has something to offer anyone looking for a good time at the movies. Not only is the film based on an original story, but it's an original story that is worth being told, worth listening to, and incredibly entertaining. Originality seems to be extinct when it comes to horror these days. It's just so refreshing to see a film that not only isn't a remake, but drenches itself in the fact that it offers something new. Sam Raimi has delivered a cinematic feature that has rejuvenated what we once referred to as "the horror film." Let's hope that other filmmakers can tread the same path that he has paved the way with.
This is Sam Raimi's return to the horror genre, in case you hadn't heard that in the trailer or anything else promoting the film. Drag Me To Hell has already had such an overwhelmingly positive response when it comes to feedback and the truth of the matter is that the film is genuinely that entertaining. Not only did Sam Raimi return to the horror genre, but he did it so flawlessly and without missing a beat. He's on top of his game and, dare I say, the best he's ever been. The film only seemed to get better as it progressed. It's somehow capable of combining comedy, suspense, romance, and horror all into one amazing final product. A film that can do something like make you laugh out loud one minute, scare you the next, gross you out after that, and tear at your heartstrings is something special. And it's not like the film does that one time and calls it quits. It goes through that cycle (laugh, scare, gross, heartwarming) over and over again throughout the film. Sam Raimi has struck cinematic gold.
Drag Me To Hell is a hell of a lot of fun. It truly has something to offer anyone looking for a good time at the movies. Not only is the film based on an original story, but it's an original story that is worth being told, worth listening to, and incredibly entertaining. Originality seems to be extinct when it comes to horror these days. It's just so refreshing to see a film that not only isn't a remake, but drenches itself in the fact that it offers something new. Sam Raimi has delivered a cinematic feature that has rejuvenated what we once referred to as "the horror film." Let's hope that other filmmakers can tread the same path that he has paved the way with.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Videodrome: Days of O'Blivion in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book from the author in exchange for an honest review</i>
Written as a prequel to David Cronenberg’s horror film, Lee McGeorge explores the potential scenario that led up to the surrealist events in <i>Videodrome</i>. This short story is more science fiction than horror in nature as it only builds up the background and setting to the point in which the film begins.
<i>Days of O’Blivion</i>, as well as the original film, is set during the cold war between the US and USSR. It is a period of time threatened with atomic weapons of mass destruction, and the competition to create the most superior technology. In this particular scenario, two men: Professor Brian Olivier and his friend Barry have been experimenting with special television technology resulting in interesting outcomes. Their product, which they name <i>Veraceo</i> –a compound of Veracity and Video –, has the ability to make everyone believe what they are seeing on screen to be true. This could be a big boon to advertising establishments, however cause dire consequences if found in the wrong hands, i.e. communists.
Readers, including those unfamiliar with the film, should be able to ascertain several problems this technological advancement could pose, making it all the more foreboding when an unknown but powerful company pays out thousands of dollars to become partners with Brian and Barry. What makes it all the more ominous is Brian’s hesitancy in accepting the offer in contrast with Barry’s excitement. As the technology is adapted further it becomes clear that they are dealing with very dangerous concepts and people – hallucinations being only the smallest of side affects.
Although Lee McGeorge is using an already existing story, he makes this prequel his own by exploring the hows and whys <i>Veraceo</i> came to be developed. His narrative is accurate in terms of the way it builds up to coincide with the film script without damaging or giving new meaning to Cronenberg’s original storyline.
Although not horror as in scary, <i>Days of O’Blivion</i> contains many horrific scenes. Most of these are pornographic in nature and rather disturbing, particularly more so as the story progresses – something that lessened the general enjoyment of the book. The overall nature of the book (and film, probably) may appeal more towards a male market, particularly those with a less delicate temperament.
As with his previous books, which also incorporate pre-existing ideas, Lee McGeorge writes well in a way that engages the reader and even interests those without prior knowledge of the subject. There is also additional digital content alongside this book. Those lucky enough to own a paper back copy will be able to access these using an NFC enabled device.
Written as a prequel to David Cronenberg’s horror film, Lee McGeorge explores the potential scenario that led up to the surrealist events in <i>Videodrome</i>. This short story is more science fiction than horror in nature as it only builds up the background and setting to the point in which the film begins.
<i>Days of O’Blivion</i>, as well as the original film, is set during the cold war between the US and USSR. It is a period of time threatened with atomic weapons of mass destruction, and the competition to create the most superior technology. In this particular scenario, two men: Professor Brian Olivier and his friend Barry have been experimenting with special television technology resulting in interesting outcomes. Their product, which they name <i>Veraceo</i> –a compound of Veracity and Video –, has the ability to make everyone believe what they are seeing on screen to be true. This could be a big boon to advertising establishments, however cause dire consequences if found in the wrong hands, i.e. communists.
Readers, including those unfamiliar with the film, should be able to ascertain several problems this technological advancement could pose, making it all the more foreboding when an unknown but powerful company pays out thousands of dollars to become partners with Brian and Barry. What makes it all the more ominous is Brian’s hesitancy in accepting the offer in contrast with Barry’s excitement. As the technology is adapted further it becomes clear that they are dealing with very dangerous concepts and people – hallucinations being only the smallest of side affects.
Although Lee McGeorge is using an already existing story, he makes this prequel his own by exploring the hows and whys <i>Veraceo</i> came to be developed. His narrative is accurate in terms of the way it builds up to coincide with the film script without damaging or giving new meaning to Cronenberg’s original storyline.
Although not horror as in scary, <i>Days of O’Blivion</i> contains many horrific scenes. Most of these are pornographic in nature and rather disturbing, particularly more so as the story progresses – something that lessened the general enjoyment of the book. The overall nature of the book (and film, probably) may appeal more towards a male market, particularly those with a less delicate temperament.
As with his previous books, which also incorporate pre-existing ideas, Lee McGeorge writes well in a way that engages the reader and even interests those without prior knowledge of the subject. There is also additional digital content alongside this book. Those lucky enough to own a paper back copy will be able to access these using an NFC enabled device.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Nov 23, 2019
Rocky For the Win
Yesterday can be quite the uneven movie at times, however its good ultimately outweighs its bad when it’s all said and done. When a struggling singer-songwriter gets hit by a bus, he awakens to a world where people have no knowledge of The Beatles. He uses their songs to become famous, but soon realizes that that fame comes at a cost.
Acting: 10
Himesh Patel delivers a strong performance as singer-songwriter Jack Malik. He was definitely overshadowed at times by even stronger performances from the likes of Joel Fry who plays his Road Manager Rocky and Kate McKinnon as Debra Hammer, a woman who latches on to Jack’s fame and runs with it. Even Ed Sheeran came through with a solid performance as himself.
Beginning: 9
Characters: 10
To expand on the above, I loved what the supporting characters brought to the table. Ed Sheeran’s caricature of himself is pretty hilarious and it’s refreshing to see a celebrity not taking himself too seriously. Rocky is all over the place and constantly screwing things up, but even his screwups have a certain endearing quality that brings you closer into his world. Meanwhile Debra Hammer is just a fireball, adding spice to every single scene she is in. She is one of those characters you can’t help but laugh at.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
As Jack’s popularity start to increase so does his fanbase and reach. He starts to travel the world and we’re graced with beautiful shots from all over the globe and across the UK. Different venues and swelling crowds keep the scenes fresh and advance the story in a smooth fashion.
Conflict: 5
The major conflict appears to be between Jack and his friend Ellie (Lily James). They both seem to have a thing for each other but Jack’s newfound fame throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the advancement of their relationship. I had trouble buying into the conflict a bit, however, as I never suspected the truth would be found out about Jack nor did I think at any point that him and Ellie wouldn’t end up together. Despite knowing this, the movie was still enjoyable. I just wish more feasible obstacles were put in place to advance the story properly.
Entertainment Value: 8
The movie is ultimately heartfelt and sweet which makes for enhancing its entertainment value. it was a treat watching someone who struggled for so long finally make it and live his dream. I also enjoyed watching Jack develop as a character and change his perspective on what he considered success.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
Overall: 82
I have to say, this was one of the most fun movie experiences I had all year. To hear these crowds succumb to all The Beatles music sung from the mouth of someone else is vastly unique. Although it does stumble at bit at the end, I highly recommend Yesterday.
Acting: 10
Himesh Patel delivers a strong performance as singer-songwriter Jack Malik. He was definitely overshadowed at times by even stronger performances from the likes of Joel Fry who plays his Road Manager Rocky and Kate McKinnon as Debra Hammer, a woman who latches on to Jack’s fame and runs with it. Even Ed Sheeran came through with a solid performance as himself.
Beginning: 9
Characters: 10
To expand on the above, I loved what the supporting characters brought to the table. Ed Sheeran’s caricature of himself is pretty hilarious and it’s refreshing to see a celebrity not taking himself too seriously. Rocky is all over the place and constantly screwing things up, but even his screwups have a certain endearing quality that brings you closer into his world. Meanwhile Debra Hammer is just a fireball, adding spice to every single scene she is in. She is one of those characters you can’t help but laugh at.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
As Jack’s popularity start to increase so does his fanbase and reach. He starts to travel the world and we’re graced with beautiful shots from all over the globe and across the UK. Different venues and swelling crowds keep the scenes fresh and advance the story in a smooth fashion.
Conflict: 5
The major conflict appears to be between Jack and his friend Ellie (Lily James). They both seem to have a thing for each other but Jack’s newfound fame throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the advancement of their relationship. I had trouble buying into the conflict a bit, however, as I never suspected the truth would be found out about Jack nor did I think at any point that him and Ellie wouldn’t end up together. Despite knowing this, the movie was still enjoyable. I just wish more feasible obstacles were put in place to advance the story properly.
Entertainment Value: 8
The movie is ultimately heartfelt and sweet which makes for enhancing its entertainment value. it was a treat watching someone who struggled for so long finally make it and live his dream. I also enjoyed watching Jack develop as a character and change his perspective on what he considered success.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
Overall: 82
I have to say, this was one of the most fun movie experiences I had all year. To hear these crowds succumb to all The Beatles music sung from the mouth of someone else is vastly unique. Although it does stumble at bit at the end, I highly recommend Yesterday.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Evil Dead (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
One of the greatest horror movies of all time would have to be “The Evil Dead” which had been spawned by Sam Raimi and his original short film “Within the Woods”. “Within the Woods” was filmed with the intent of gaining investors to collaborate on a full length film starring the then unknown God of “B” horror movies Bruce Campbell. “The Evil Dead” and its predecessor “Within the Woods” was meant to be serious and horrifying, though that proved to be hard with a smaller budget that Raimi and Campbell had originally hoped for. Little did they know that Evil Dead would become one of the largest trilogies in cult film histories.
Based on Raimi’s original 1981 script, five young adult friends set out on a short vacation in a remote cabin in the woods. Whilst reading from a book that was obviously supposed to stay hidden, one of them ends up summoning dormant demons that end up causing havoc among the group. Killing them off one by one. Though the aura of the film is somewhat similar to the original, we all know that with remakes there are always some differences. In the original the five friends go to a cabin for a care free fun filled weekend the remake centers around one friend trying to kick her drug habits “cold turkey” with the help of her three friends and older brother.
The cinematography of the film is one hundred times better (remember in the original; Bruce running from the “deadite” and you could see the lights in the rafters of the studio “that does not happen in this film”). The remake pays homage to the original in certain respects and can be spotted throughout the film if you are a true “Evil Dead” fanatic. Unlike the original movie that had been filmed in Tennessee the remake was filmed in its entirety in New Zealand. The recreation of the cabin is almost uncanny with a couple of differences here and there. As expected the special FX are much better with a bigger budget and the advancement of technology. Like the original the actors are not well known and only have done a couple other projects. The cast was well selected and the acting was much better.
If you are a true fan of the original film you may like or dislike it. I myself found it to be entertaining however it doesn’t come close to the original film. If you’ve never seen the original you may like this movie based on its own merits. I must add if you’ve never seen the original film shame on you. To all Evil dead and/or Bruce Campbell fans I can not disclose to you if Bruce makes a cameo but I will say this stay till the end of the credits and you may feel pretty groovy.
Based on Raimi’s original 1981 script, five young adult friends set out on a short vacation in a remote cabin in the woods. Whilst reading from a book that was obviously supposed to stay hidden, one of them ends up summoning dormant demons that end up causing havoc among the group. Killing them off one by one. Though the aura of the film is somewhat similar to the original, we all know that with remakes there are always some differences. In the original the five friends go to a cabin for a care free fun filled weekend the remake centers around one friend trying to kick her drug habits “cold turkey” with the help of her three friends and older brother.
The cinematography of the film is one hundred times better (remember in the original; Bruce running from the “deadite” and you could see the lights in the rafters of the studio “that does not happen in this film”). The remake pays homage to the original in certain respects and can be spotted throughout the film if you are a true “Evil Dead” fanatic. Unlike the original movie that had been filmed in Tennessee the remake was filmed in its entirety in New Zealand. The recreation of the cabin is almost uncanny with a couple of differences here and there. As expected the special FX are much better with a bigger budget and the advancement of technology. Like the original the actors are not well known and only have done a couple other projects. The cast was well selected and the acting was much better.
If you are a true fan of the original film you may like or dislike it. I myself found it to be entertaining however it doesn’t come close to the original film. If you’ve never seen the original you may like this movie based on its own merits. I must add if you’ve never seen the original film shame on you. To all Evil dead and/or Bruce Campbell fans I can not disclose to you if Bruce makes a cameo but I will say this stay till the end of the credits and you may feel pretty groovy.
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Split Second in Books
May 23, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Split Second was an overall thought provoking book with duplications of matter, how time travel could work and teleportation, I found it hard to put down. It brought a lot of good points up about many of things we all wonder about, like multiple time lines and if it was possible to travel in time how would this work and so on. It definitely kept my interest and raised some questions of my own, resulting in my own research project as well.
I was rather impressed on all the research Richards must have done on different theories to use in this book, and to be able to explain them in ways even young adults could understand easily made it all the better. To have a book that is both able to teach you about different subjects and still hold your interest without going dry from all the random facts thrown in, was truly an outstanding feat. I enjoyed the twists and turns while being able to try and guess what is going on myself. Needless to say it was hard to keep track of who was with who and where those people stood in relevance to the current problem. However, because of that is made it all more appealing to read. Nothing like a little suspense to keep the book moving along nicely.
I was surprised on how it wrapped up so nicely that I didn't feel like there should've been a second book created. However, even though it was wrapped up beautifully, making it feel complete, I did see that Richards was able to sneak in a few ideas for his characters to play with that could result in a second book, even if I felt this was not necessary. I loves how Richards was able to come up advancements we could only dream of and make them seem all too real. I can't help but ponder if some of the advancement mentioned in the book are real. Which brings me to how the book pointed that the government hid all kinds of things and that these advancements could be done in secrecy because of how the programs they ran would have unlimited resources to conduct such research projects. To see how this would work, though not thoroughly explained in the book, was still a nice touch.
I would recommend this book to everyone who has an interest in time travel and its possible complications. When the subject at hand is discussed in several perspectives, it isn't hard to see how something that we all dream of in one way or another could be so harmful to the universe and to our fellow mankind. It also gives some ideas in how it would work as well as what some of those ramifications would be. It was all so fascinating and thought provoking that I can see individuals taking this book having some solid debates on the subject. Though it does leave room for one to wonder if maybe this could really be happening and we just not have a clue about it at all.
I was rather impressed on all the research Richards must have done on different theories to use in this book, and to be able to explain them in ways even young adults could understand easily made it all the better. To have a book that is both able to teach you about different subjects and still hold your interest without going dry from all the random facts thrown in, was truly an outstanding feat. I enjoyed the twists and turns while being able to try and guess what is going on myself. Needless to say it was hard to keep track of who was with who and where those people stood in relevance to the current problem. However, because of that is made it all more appealing to read. Nothing like a little suspense to keep the book moving along nicely.
I was surprised on how it wrapped up so nicely that I didn't feel like there should've been a second book created. However, even though it was wrapped up beautifully, making it feel complete, I did see that Richards was able to sneak in a few ideas for his characters to play with that could result in a second book, even if I felt this was not necessary. I loves how Richards was able to come up advancements we could only dream of and make them seem all too real. I can't help but ponder if some of the advancement mentioned in the book are real. Which brings me to how the book pointed that the government hid all kinds of things and that these advancements could be done in secrecy because of how the programs they ran would have unlimited resources to conduct such research projects. To see how this would work, though not thoroughly explained in the book, was still a nice touch.
I would recommend this book to everyone who has an interest in time travel and its possible complications. When the subject at hand is discussed in several perspectives, it isn't hard to see how something that we all dream of in one way or another could be so harmful to the universe and to our fellow mankind. It also gives some ideas in how it would work as well as what some of those ramifications would be. It was all so fascinating and thought provoking that I can see individuals taking this book having some solid debates on the subject. Though it does leave room for one to wonder if maybe this could really be happening and we just not have a clue about it at all.