Search
Search results
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Murder of King Tut in Books
Apr 27, 2018
THE MURDER OF KING TUT—THE PLOT TO KILL THE CHILD KING (Audio Book) by James Patterson and Martin Dugard, read by Joe Barrett
Genre: non-fiction thriller
Rating: 4.5/5
Summary: James Patterson tells a story in three parts—one part, the mysterious death of King Tut, the second part the discovery of his tomb by Carter, and the third part his writing, own exploration, research, and discovery of the elusive history of the boy king.
Thoughts: This is one of the best James Patterson books I’ve ever read (listened too). JP has taken an age old mystery and solved it. Yes, it appears as though the mystery of Tut is mystery no more. This book is very alive, even though the plot revolves around a murder. I felt like I was standing right there, watching it all take place. At times, I felt like the characters themselves. This was an amazing escape from reality.
Characters (5/5): Characters should be relatable for a book to be enjoyable, and the characters in Tut’s world were wonderful. They were highly developed right away, and were the kind that either you routed for or hated with a passion.
Writing (4/5/5): James is an awesome writer. I always love reading his work because it’s so lyric. His words flow smoothly and he doesn’t overuse too many phrases (though several “waves” of various things did “wash over” many people).
Content (4/5): There was barely any language in this book, which was a nice change of JP’s work. It wasn’t necessary, either. It just goes to show that the point can be made—and made well—without filthy language. There was a little bit of sex but it wasn’t too graphic, nor was it frequent.
Reader (4/5): I really liked the voice of the reader for this book. I’ve heard some pretty awful ones before, I’ll say that much right now! But Joe’s voice was perfect for this book. The only thing I didn’t like were the voices he put with the characters—the accents were pretty lousy, and when he put on a “fake” voice for the child characters, it just sounded a little silly. I was glad when Tut got old enough that he didn’t have to do that anymore!
Recommendation: Ages 16+ to lovers of fiction, history, nonfiction, thrillers, mystery, or to any James-Patterson-addict.
Genre: non-fiction thriller
Rating: 4.5/5
Summary: James Patterson tells a story in three parts—one part, the mysterious death of King Tut, the second part the discovery of his tomb by Carter, and the third part his writing, own exploration, research, and discovery of the elusive history of the boy king.
Thoughts: This is one of the best James Patterson books I’ve ever read (listened too). JP has taken an age old mystery and solved it. Yes, it appears as though the mystery of Tut is mystery no more. This book is very alive, even though the plot revolves around a murder. I felt like I was standing right there, watching it all take place. At times, I felt like the characters themselves. This was an amazing escape from reality.
Characters (5/5): Characters should be relatable for a book to be enjoyable, and the characters in Tut’s world were wonderful. They were highly developed right away, and were the kind that either you routed for or hated with a passion.
Writing (4/5/5): James is an awesome writer. I always love reading his work because it’s so lyric. His words flow smoothly and he doesn’t overuse too many phrases (though several “waves” of various things did “wash over” many people).
Content (4/5): There was barely any language in this book, which was a nice change of JP’s work. It wasn’t necessary, either. It just goes to show that the point can be made—and made well—without filthy language. There was a little bit of sex but it wasn’t too graphic, nor was it frequent.
Reader (4/5): I really liked the voice of the reader for this book. I’ve heard some pretty awful ones before, I’ll say that much right now! But Joe’s voice was perfect for this book. The only thing I didn’t like were the voices he put with the characters—the accents were pretty lousy, and when he put on a “fake” voice for the child characters, it just sounded a little silly. I was glad when Tut got old enough that he didn’t have to do that anymore!
Recommendation: Ages 16+ to lovers of fiction, history, nonfiction, thrillers, mystery, or to any James-Patterson-addict.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Blair Witch (2016) in Movies
Aug 14, 2017
Yeah, I preferred this to the original...
The original Blair Witch movie came out in 1999 (wow, where has the time gone?!) in the good old days when you could get hold of a US DVD import in the UK before a movie was even released on UK cinema screens. I remember The Blair Witch Project being released in the UK on Halloween, the same day that the US DVD was delivered to my house! I excitedly sat down to watch it that evening with my family while everyone else had to go out in the cold rainy weather to watch it at the cinema, and I remember at the end of the movie we all kind of looked at each other as if to say “is that it…?!” All the hype, all the usual crap about it being absolutely terrifying and the scariest movie ever made and it was just a bunch of people getting spooked in the woods! To be fair, it wasn’t that bad, but it just wasn’t as scary or as fantastic as we’d been led to believe. The movie spawned a forgettable sequel and since then, despite being done to death, far superior found footage movies have come along and done it all a hell of a lot better. Then, out of the blue in July last year, a movie which had been previously marketed as ‘The Woods’ was revealed to actually be ‘Blair Witch’. The trailer looked OK, not great but interesting enough. But, once again we’re being subjected to all the usual marketing crap about it being terrifying and the scariest thing you’ve ever seen… blah, blah, blah…
James Donahue is the brother of Heather, who was one of the central characters in the first film. We join him 22 years after the original, as he prepares to lead a new bunch of characters into the Burkittsville woods. They meet up with a couple of young locals, who offer to be their guide, and off they head, into the woods where their video footage will later be discovered. This time round, the array of cameras capturing the footage has vastly improved. As well as the standard handhelds, we’ve got ear piece cams, drone cams, night cams. All offering new and interesting ways to capture the action.
Things mostly follow a similar path to the original – strange noises, weird stuff happening with time, thinking you’re heading in one direction when you’re going around in circles, juddery camera movements where it’s difficult to tell what the hell is going on. But… you do actually see things this time, the noises that you hear are terrifying, the characters are far more interesting and believable than those in the original. And the final act when we find ourselves back in the house from the first movie is seriously the stuff of nightmares.
Director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett, both have an excellent recent track record (see You’re Next and The Guest) and their influence on this movie has taken this story to another level. This is a far superior movie to the original and yes, it is truly terrifying.
James Donahue is the brother of Heather, who was one of the central characters in the first film. We join him 22 years after the original, as he prepares to lead a new bunch of characters into the Burkittsville woods. They meet up with a couple of young locals, who offer to be their guide, and off they head, into the woods where their video footage will later be discovered. This time round, the array of cameras capturing the footage has vastly improved. As well as the standard handhelds, we’ve got ear piece cams, drone cams, night cams. All offering new and interesting ways to capture the action.
Things mostly follow a similar path to the original – strange noises, weird stuff happening with time, thinking you’re heading in one direction when you’re going around in circles, juddery camera movements where it’s difficult to tell what the hell is going on. But… you do actually see things this time, the noises that you hear are terrifying, the characters are far more interesting and believable than those in the original. And the final act when we find ourselves back in the house from the first movie is seriously the stuff of nightmares.
Director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett, both have an excellent recent track record (see You’re Next and The Guest) and their influence on this movie has taken this story to another level. This is a far superior movie to the original and yes, it is truly terrifying.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Lilies of the Field (1963) in Movies
Jan 31, 2022
Strong Performances by Poitier and Skala
The film that Sidney Poitier won his Best Actor In A Leading Role Oscar for (becoming the first Black Man to do so) is the type of film that is rarely made these days - a simple film of love, faith, friendship and inspiration.
Written by James Poe from the Novel by William E. Barrett, LILIES OF THE FIELD tells the tale of a drifter who is the answer to a Nun’s prayer. Praying to the God that she believes in, she asks for help in getting a Church built in the desert in Arizona.
Simply Directed by Ralph Nelson (fresh off his success with REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT), Lilies of the Field is a positive life (and faith) affirming film from start to finish that will touch your heart…and your soul.
Poitier stars as handyman Homer Smith who’s car breaks down where a group of Nuns are trying to start a parish (and get a church built). Following the machinations of Mother Maria (Lilia Skala - in an Oscar nominated turn of her own), Homer never leaves and ends up being inspired - and inspiring others - to get this church built.
But it is the journey - not the destination - of this film that matters. Homer is thwarted time and time again by Mother Maria in his attempts to leave and his protestations that this is the “final job, then I’m leaving” is met with steeled determination by Mother Maria who has an unflappable belief that Homer is the answer to her prayers.
This film hangs on the relationship between Homer and Mother Maria and these 2 fine actors deliver the goods. Poitier is a deserved winner of the Best Actor Oscar (though he would fret for years that his win was a “token” win - which it is not). His Homer Smith is charming and forceful with a “lost” look in his eyes when he first arrives in the desert. This, in turns, changes to fierce determination to get that church built.
The real hero of this film is the under-rated performance of Skala (who did a series of TV Guest star appearances in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s but never really had a movie role - before or since - that would rival this one). It would have been tempting to make Mother Maria a one-note ice queen in her dogged determination - and belief - that Homer was sent by God, but in the hands of Skala there is a warmth in her eyes that serves as a counterbalance to her resolve.
It is the relationship of these 2 characters - and the ramifications of this relationship to the parish community - that is the soul of this film, and this soul runs deep. The relationship between Homer and Mother Maria is not, exactly, a friendship, but more of a strong work bond. 2 persons united in a common goal - for the common good.
Not the fastest moving of all films you will view, but the heart and soul that is at the center of this film - along with 2 very strong central performances - will warm your heart.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written by James Poe from the Novel by William E. Barrett, LILIES OF THE FIELD tells the tale of a drifter who is the answer to a Nun’s prayer. Praying to the God that she believes in, she asks for help in getting a Church built in the desert in Arizona.
Simply Directed by Ralph Nelson (fresh off his success with REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT), Lilies of the Field is a positive life (and faith) affirming film from start to finish that will touch your heart…and your soul.
Poitier stars as handyman Homer Smith who’s car breaks down where a group of Nuns are trying to start a parish (and get a church built). Following the machinations of Mother Maria (Lilia Skala - in an Oscar nominated turn of her own), Homer never leaves and ends up being inspired - and inspiring others - to get this church built.
But it is the journey - not the destination - of this film that matters. Homer is thwarted time and time again by Mother Maria in his attempts to leave and his protestations that this is the “final job, then I’m leaving” is met with steeled determination by Mother Maria who has an unflappable belief that Homer is the answer to her prayers.
This film hangs on the relationship between Homer and Mother Maria and these 2 fine actors deliver the goods. Poitier is a deserved winner of the Best Actor Oscar (though he would fret for years that his win was a “token” win - which it is not). His Homer Smith is charming and forceful with a “lost” look in his eyes when he first arrives in the desert. This, in turns, changes to fierce determination to get that church built.
The real hero of this film is the under-rated performance of Skala (who did a series of TV Guest star appearances in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s but never really had a movie role - before or since - that would rival this one). It would have been tempting to make Mother Maria a one-note ice queen in her dogged determination - and belief - that Homer was sent by God, but in the hands of Skala there is a warmth in her eyes that serves as a counterbalance to her resolve.
It is the relationship of these 2 characters - and the ramifications of this relationship to the parish community - that is the soul of this film, and this soul runs deep. The relationship between Homer and Mother Maria is not, exactly, a friendship, but more of a strong work bond. 2 persons united in a common goal - for the common good.
Not the fastest moving of all films you will view, but the heart and soul that is at the center of this film - along with 2 very strong central performances - will warm your heart.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)