Search
Merissa (12061 KP) rated Raising Hell: How To Survive The Terrible Twos in Books
Sep 6, 2023
RAISING HELL: HOW TO SURVIVE THE TERRIBLE TWOS really should be read after What To Expect When You're Expecting Something Different as the story continues on from that one.
Eve now has two children - Seraphina and Malak. She is trying her best to rein in Seraphina's erm... let us say evil tendencies! Not so easy when you have a strong-willed child but especially so if they're the antichrist! Thank goodness for Malak. He is a child who just eats and sleeps, giving Eve a little respite. Her world is still crazy, although Lucas does his best when he can.
It is a while since I read the first book so it took me a while to fully get into this one, as events that helped to shape Eve, I couldn't fully remember. The story soon dragged me in, and I was lost within the world created. Some of the events were expected but some weren't!
The imagery you are given in Katie Zaber's stories is just outstanding! The descriptions of Eve's mindscape are so clear. And the emotions come through loud and clear. You can feel her frustrations rolling out through the pages.
It does end on a cliffhanger so fair warning. Plus, I really need to know more about Desmond. A thoroughly enjoyable book that is different to the rest and absolutely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Sep 1, 2023
Eve now has two children - Seraphina and Malak. She is trying her best to rein in Seraphina's erm... let us say evil tendencies! Not so easy when you have a strong-willed child but especially so if they're the antichrist! Thank goodness for Malak. He is a child who just eats and sleeps, giving Eve a little respite. Her world is still crazy, although Lucas does his best when he can.
It is a while since I read the first book so it took me a while to fully get into this one, as events that helped to shape Eve, I couldn't fully remember. The story soon dragged me in, and I was lost within the world created. Some of the events were expected but some weren't!
The imagery you are given in Katie Zaber's stories is just outstanding! The descriptions of Eve's mindscape are so clear. And the emotions come through loud and clear. You can feel her frustrations rolling out through the pages.
It does end on a cliffhanger so fair warning. Plus, I really need to know more about Desmond. A thoroughly enjoyable book that is different to the rest and absolutely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Sep 1, 2023
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Good Omens in TV
Aug 25, 2019
Could’ve been better
I love Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, but yet I’ve never read Good Omens. The book is next on my to read list, but I thought I’d give the show a go first and in the main, I did enjoy it.
The best thing about this show is by far the interactions between Aziraphale and Crowley, and the performances of Michael Sheen and David Tennant. They’re so much fun and this is where virtually all of the laughs in this show come from. They’re a great pairing, even if they are a little over the top at times, and my favourite episode by far was the one that showed their interactions over the ages. It’s the rest of the plot that I feel let’s this show down a little bit. There are some wonderful cameos from a whole host of stars, and Jon Hamm was great if a little underused. I would’ve loved to have seen more of him. However I really wish they hadn’t cast Jack Whitehall, I don’t get his appeal as he’s an horrendous actor and rather irritating.
The problem though is that despite this show being about the Antichrist and the end of the world, the ending itself is rather lacklustre and whilst everyone wants to stop (or start) the end of the world, the urgency and tension and terror is all too lacking. I get that this is meant to be humorous, but it can still be funny and threatening in the same episode. I actually think they could’ve done without the whole end of the world thing and just had buddy type show with Aziraphale and Crowley that would’ve been just as or even more entertaining. I’m intrigued now to see how this plays out in the book and if it works better.
The best thing about this show is by far the interactions between Aziraphale and Crowley, and the performances of Michael Sheen and David Tennant. They’re so much fun and this is where virtually all of the laughs in this show come from. They’re a great pairing, even if they are a little over the top at times, and my favourite episode by far was the one that showed their interactions over the ages. It’s the rest of the plot that I feel let’s this show down a little bit. There are some wonderful cameos from a whole host of stars, and Jon Hamm was great if a little underused. I would’ve loved to have seen more of him. However I really wish they hadn’t cast Jack Whitehall, I don’t get his appeal as he’s an horrendous actor and rather irritating.
The problem though is that despite this show being about the Antichrist and the end of the world, the ending itself is rather lacklustre and whilst everyone wants to stop (or start) the end of the world, the urgency and tension and terror is all too lacking. I get that this is meant to be humorous, but it can still be funny and threatening in the same episode. I actually think they could’ve done without the whole end of the world thing and just had buddy type show with Aziraphale and Crowley that would’ve been just as or even more entertaining. I’m intrigued now to see how this plays out in the book and if it works better.
Thrash Anthems II by Destruction
Album Watch
German thrash legends DESTRUCTION return with, Thrash Anthems II, the follow-up to 2007's Thrash...
Metal
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated The Satanic Bible in Books
Jun 29, 2018
LaVey echoes a view of man's value and of non-materialist religion which can be easily found in the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche (especially Antichrist) and Ayn Rand. He is incredibly inconsistent on the subject of morality and shows only a cursory understanding of Christian history, doctrines, and the Bible.
LaVey does not view Satan as a person (nor does he view God that way), but as a representation of what man really is in his primal nature-- a violent and lustful nature which LaVey calls good, though he simultaneously argues that certain parts of it (that which would harm children or rape, for instance) are not good-- a dichotomy that he calls hypocritical in righthand path religions such as Christianity. Beyond this tension, he elsewhere seems to argue for moral relativism, creating a vicious circle of nonsense. Because good and evil are falsehoods and God and Satan are non-persons, the spells and rituals he creates are only symbols meant to harness our primal energies, sending them out to accomplish our goals (much like in the Hicks' Law of Attraction books or in The Secret).
A mix of equal parts tongue-in-cheek symbolism and outright charlatanism.
I suspect that this book's teachings would appeal primarily to two types of people: narcissists who want to seem edgy and angry people who have been harmed by institutional religion. In regard to the former, there are more thoughtful ways to be counter-cultural. In regard to the latter, an assessment of the intellectual weaknesses of this philosophy won't remove the hurt or pain they've been through, but hopefully an understanding that the kind of Christianity spoken of by LaVey is not genuine Christianity can remove some of the hatred they feel toward it due to the immoral actions performed by its claimed representatives.
Totally off-topic, but Lavey looks like a bald version of Evil Spock.
LaVey does not view Satan as a person (nor does he view God that way), but as a representation of what man really is in his primal nature-- a violent and lustful nature which LaVey calls good, though he simultaneously argues that certain parts of it (that which would harm children or rape, for instance) are not good-- a dichotomy that he calls hypocritical in righthand path religions such as Christianity. Beyond this tension, he elsewhere seems to argue for moral relativism, creating a vicious circle of nonsense. Because good and evil are falsehoods and God and Satan are non-persons, the spells and rituals he creates are only symbols meant to harness our primal energies, sending them out to accomplish our goals (much like in the Hicks' Law of Attraction books or in The Secret).
A mix of equal parts tongue-in-cheek symbolism and outright charlatanism.
I suspect that this book's teachings would appeal primarily to two types of people: narcissists who want to seem edgy and angry people who have been harmed by institutional religion. In regard to the former, there are more thoughtful ways to be counter-cultural. In regard to the latter, an assessment of the intellectual weaknesses of this philosophy won't remove the hurt or pain they've been through, but hopefully an understanding that the kind of Christianity spoken of by LaVey is not genuine Christianity can remove some of the hatred they feel toward it due to the immoral actions performed by its claimed representatives.
Totally off-topic, but Lavey looks like a bald version of Evil Spock.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Mandy (2018) in Movies
Nov 2, 2018
Unique storytelling and visual splendor at its finest!
You never know what to think when you start a movie starring Nicolas Cage. He's almost a mockery of himself these days with so many unusual, crappy over-the-top performances, I was skeptical of this one to say the least.
I don't remember where I even heard of this film. Must have been one of the movie sites I frequent. I actually decided to purchase having not watched first, something I rarely do indeed.
To say this is a story of revenge doesn't really do it justice. In fact any words I can place here in this review won't really explain. When Nicolas Cage and his wife are kidnapped by a gang of hooligan, crazed hippie religious freaks, that is just the beginning. After some bad things happen, Cage is changed forever as he embarks down the long tunnel of revenge and vengeance for blood.
Normally, technical prowess, or saying the film "looks great" doesn't impress me since, in the age of CGI, pretty much every movie looks flawless these days.
Something about the art direction, cinematography, editing, haunting musical score, costumes and gory brutal make-up effects come together to create a truly unique film.
I can see influences from Sam Raimi's Army of Darkness, Rob Zombie's House of 1,000 Corpses and even Lars von Trier's Antichrist at times and even elements from Darren Aronofsky's Mother! or Clive Barker's Hellraiser.
The film is definitely not for everyone. I would predict others rating this film from 1 to 10 (like Mother!) but would have to admit you had never seen anything like it. Director Panos Cosmatos is one I will have to keep an eye on.
Please watch Mandy and let me know what you think whether you agree or disagree. I'd be very interested to hear and debate with you.
I don't remember where I even heard of this film. Must have been one of the movie sites I frequent. I actually decided to purchase having not watched first, something I rarely do indeed.
To say this is a story of revenge doesn't really do it justice. In fact any words I can place here in this review won't really explain. When Nicolas Cage and his wife are kidnapped by a gang of hooligan, crazed hippie religious freaks, that is just the beginning. After some bad things happen, Cage is changed forever as he embarks down the long tunnel of revenge and vengeance for blood.
Normally, technical prowess, or saying the film "looks great" doesn't impress me since, in the age of CGI, pretty much every movie looks flawless these days.
Something about the art direction, cinematography, editing, haunting musical score, costumes and gory brutal make-up effects come together to create a truly unique film.
I can see influences from Sam Raimi's Army of Darkness, Rob Zombie's House of 1,000 Corpses and even Lars von Trier's Antichrist at times and even elements from Darren Aronofsky's Mother! or Clive Barker's Hellraiser.
The film is definitely not for everyone. I would predict others rating this film from 1 to 10 (like Mother!) but would have to admit you had never seen anything like it. Director Panos Cosmatos is one I will have to keep an eye on.
Please watch Mandy and let me know what you think whether you agree or disagree. I'd be very interested to hear and debate with you.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Danish director Lars Von Trier is no stranger to controversy. He has certainly divided film fans with some praising his work and some condemning it. The House That Jack Built is his most recent creation, causing audience members at Cannes to either walk out in disgust or stand up and applaud. This seriously mixed reception caught my interest and I wanted to find out what he’d done to generate such a response.
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Into the disturbing mind of a serial killer..
The human mind is still one of those ultimate enigmas of life. How does it work exactly? Nature vs. nurture? What causes some of us to devote their lives to philanthropy and helping others whilst others of us are deeply disturbed devoting their existence to the destruction of life for their twisted, demented pleasure?
The story of Jack is a exercise in the extreme. From the opening moments of THTJB, the audience is quickly brought into Jack's world and not released for 2 1/2 hours of brutality.
Jack finds himself in his bright red rape van when he passes a damsel in distress in the form of a woman with a flat tire. He stops and reluctantly agrees to drive her to the nearest auto repair place for assistance. When the plight becomes more complicated, Jack reluctantly agrees to further drive the woman around. Growing impatient with her constant blather and insults at Jack's personality, Jack quickly reaches his limit and destroys the woman quickly using her broken car jack which happens to be lying right next to him in the front seat.
That is just the beginning.
The film is set to 5 "incidents" and an "epilogue" which chronicle several years in Jack's life, including other relationships with woman, his family and random encounters he has all used to fuel his addiction with death. Without detailing them all here, his journey for carnage includes extreme actions including multiple murders, corpse manipulation and even human trophies.
If you are a fan of writer/director Lars von Trier, this will be nothing new to you if you have seen some of his other films including Antichrist, Nymphomaniac or Dogville. His films usually require a strong stomach, but do not shock for shock's sake alone. The vivid imagery in all his films is used not only to proper the narrative, to show the audience something they have not seen before and cross the lines between art and film. His films will repulse some. I won't squabble with those who cannot handle his type of film-making; however, maybe my inner film snob relishes those who give me something different, something to think about after I have finished watching and thought out interesting characters you almost never see any more.
With THTJB, he delves into the human mind well providing voice-over to let us in to what Jack is thinking and maybe helps us include a glimmer of understanding with it. Jack's acts are loathsome, morbid, violent, criminal and terrible, but somehow I was still fascinated by him which comes with good writing. In an interview I watched after viewing the film, von Trier explained he loved writing for Jack because you never knew quite what he was going to say. Several times within the film he is "caught" in an awkward situation and is able to talk himself out of it with absurd, yet believable rhetoric. You certainly don't root for him since his actions are reprehensible, but you are interested in what happens next.
Matt Dillon was overlooked during awards season of 2018. The Academy should've looked his way as they did for Sir Anthony Hopkins in 1991. His performance is gritty, deeply disturbing and very believable. He made Jack seem sympathetic at times even through his extreme violent nature. Sometimes subtle, sometimes over the top. I can't remember a performance of his which was more striking.
A film by Lars von Trier will always propel your intellect after your viewing is complete and this film is no exception. Some of the images the movie provides (not just the kill scenes) are unforgettable, some beautiful, but all very thought out and aligned with precision. He is undoubtedly one of the most unique directors working in film today and I continually look forward to his subsequent offerings!
The story of Jack is a exercise in the extreme. From the opening moments of THTJB, the audience is quickly brought into Jack's world and not released for 2 1/2 hours of brutality.
Jack finds himself in his bright red rape van when he passes a damsel in distress in the form of a woman with a flat tire. He stops and reluctantly agrees to drive her to the nearest auto repair place for assistance. When the plight becomes more complicated, Jack reluctantly agrees to further drive the woman around. Growing impatient with her constant blather and insults at Jack's personality, Jack quickly reaches his limit and destroys the woman quickly using her broken car jack which happens to be lying right next to him in the front seat.
That is just the beginning.
The film is set to 5 "incidents" and an "epilogue" which chronicle several years in Jack's life, including other relationships with woman, his family and random encounters he has all used to fuel his addiction with death. Without detailing them all here, his journey for carnage includes extreme actions including multiple murders, corpse manipulation and even human trophies.
If you are a fan of writer/director Lars von Trier, this will be nothing new to you if you have seen some of his other films including Antichrist, Nymphomaniac or Dogville. His films usually require a strong stomach, but do not shock for shock's sake alone. The vivid imagery in all his films is used not only to proper the narrative, to show the audience something they have not seen before and cross the lines between art and film. His films will repulse some. I won't squabble with those who cannot handle his type of film-making; however, maybe my inner film snob relishes those who give me something different, something to think about after I have finished watching and thought out interesting characters you almost never see any more.
With THTJB, he delves into the human mind well providing voice-over to let us in to what Jack is thinking and maybe helps us include a glimmer of understanding with it. Jack's acts are loathsome, morbid, violent, criminal and terrible, but somehow I was still fascinated by him which comes with good writing. In an interview I watched after viewing the film, von Trier explained he loved writing for Jack because you never knew quite what he was going to say. Several times within the film he is "caught" in an awkward situation and is able to talk himself out of it with absurd, yet believable rhetoric. You certainly don't root for him since his actions are reprehensible, but you are interested in what happens next.
Matt Dillon was overlooked during awards season of 2018. The Academy should've looked his way as they did for Sir Anthony Hopkins in 1991. His performance is gritty, deeply disturbing and very believable. He made Jack seem sympathetic at times even through his extreme violent nature. Sometimes subtle, sometimes over the top. I can't remember a performance of his which was more striking.
A film by Lars von Trier will always propel your intellect after your viewing is complete and this film is no exception. Some of the images the movie provides (not just the kill scenes) are unforgettable, some beautiful, but all very thought out and aligned with precision. He is undoubtedly one of the most unique directors working in film today and I continually look forward to his subsequent offerings!