Search
Search results
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Behind Closed Doors in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also find my review here: http://bit.ly/28KzCFf
<b><i>Fear," he whispered. "There is nothing quite like it. I love how it looks, I love how it feels, I love how it smells. And I especially love the sound of it." I felt his tongue on my cheek. "I even love the taste of it.</i></b>
Welcome to Jack and Grace's perfect life and perfect marriage. Jack's an amazing, handsome and successful lawyer for battered woman and Grace is the gorgeous put-together house wife... or so it seems. But what if Grace were to tell she wasn't a house wife, she was in fact a prisoner locked up by her own husband who craves nothing more than seeing and feeling another person's fear? Would you believe her?
I loved all the twists and turns and edge of the seat moments within this novel. It was an excellent thriller that Im sure thousands have and will continue to enjoy. Im definitely going to keep my eyes peeled for any more novels from Paris as I loved her style of writing and felt her story telling flowed perfectly.
The characters were very well developed and you really got a good insight into their lives, thoughts and feelings. Paris did an excellent job at making two very unique characters. Without trying to give too much away, Jack is a very different kind of sadistic captor. Hes so terrifying because he could definitely be real. He could be your neighbour, your boss, your friend even. Hes just a seemingly normal guy but what lies underneath is far from normal.
Grace can be a little stupid and doesnt often act quick enough, its no use for her to try anyway as Jack is always one step ahead. Shes trapped and she knows it, therefore shes an interesting character to see progress through the novel as we see her seemingly give up against her captor, but really, underneath, shes cunning and planning the whole time.
If it wasnt for the fact that you could easily guess how this was going to end once the idea was placed in front of you, it might have even got a 5 star rating. Though the end was predictable there was still some element of shock to it, especially the last heart breaking / lifting scene. <spoiler>The final scene shared between Grace and Esther was such a wonderful way to end this book, it rounded this book off so well. The perfect ending!</spoiler>
The weird thing is, the whole time I read this I thought how far fetched and silly it was, though I was enjoying it, but when you think about it, its not <i>that</i> far fetched. You hear all these terrible stories about women kidnapped and held against their will who are given the freedom to go outside but theyre so paralysed by fear of what could happen, they never say a thing to anyone. Jaycee Lee Dugard, for example, was kidnapped and kept hidden for 18 years! Keeping someone captive isnt that uncommon and Im sure there are actually some terrified women out there that are living a life something very similar to this. So when you put it into that perspective this becomes a very chilling horror story rather than just a fast paced thriller.
<b><i>Fear," he whispered. "There is nothing quite like it. I love how it looks, I love how it feels, I love how it smells. And I especially love the sound of it." I felt his tongue on my cheek. "I even love the taste of it.</i></b>
Welcome to Jack and Grace's perfect life and perfect marriage. Jack's an amazing, handsome and successful lawyer for battered woman and Grace is the gorgeous put-together house wife... or so it seems. But what if Grace were to tell she wasn't a house wife, she was in fact a prisoner locked up by her own husband who craves nothing more than seeing and feeling another person's fear? Would you believe her?
I loved all the twists and turns and edge of the seat moments within this novel. It was an excellent thriller that Im sure thousands have and will continue to enjoy. Im definitely going to keep my eyes peeled for any more novels from Paris as I loved her style of writing and felt her story telling flowed perfectly.
The characters were very well developed and you really got a good insight into their lives, thoughts and feelings. Paris did an excellent job at making two very unique characters. Without trying to give too much away, Jack is a very different kind of sadistic captor. Hes so terrifying because he could definitely be real. He could be your neighbour, your boss, your friend even. Hes just a seemingly normal guy but what lies underneath is far from normal.
Grace can be a little stupid and doesnt often act quick enough, its no use for her to try anyway as Jack is always one step ahead. Shes trapped and she knows it, therefore shes an interesting character to see progress through the novel as we see her seemingly give up against her captor, but really, underneath, shes cunning and planning the whole time.
If it wasnt for the fact that you could easily guess how this was going to end once the idea was placed in front of you, it might have even got a 5 star rating. Though the end was predictable there was still some element of shock to it, especially the last heart breaking / lifting scene. <spoiler>The final scene shared between Grace and Esther was such a wonderful way to end this book, it rounded this book off so well. The perfect ending!</spoiler>
The weird thing is, the whole time I read this I thought how far fetched and silly it was, though I was enjoying it, but when you think about it, its not <i>that</i> far fetched. You hear all these terrible stories about women kidnapped and held against their will who are given the freedom to go outside but theyre so paralysed by fear of what could happen, they never say a thing to anyone. Jaycee Lee Dugard, for example, was kidnapped and kept hidden for 18 years! Keeping someone captive isnt that uncommon and Im sure there are actually some terrified women out there that are living a life something very similar to this. So when you put it into that perspective this becomes a very chilling horror story rather than just a fast paced thriller.
Sheridan (209 KP) rated the Xbox One version of Fallout 76 in Video Games
Dec 29, 2018
Challenging Gameplay (3 more)
Huge Open World
Ability to Modify Items
CAMP Set Up
Tragic Graphics (4 more)
Online Only
No Dogmeat :(
STASH box limit
Feels Repetitive
A Game to End an Epic Series?
Let's face it - there's a lot of Fallout fans out there and these fans have a whole heap to say about this game. The big question is - is this a game for the fans? Not really, no. I don't *hate* it, but I'm not totally on board with it either. Now I've been playing the Fallout games for a very long time, I've completed both Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas serveral times and have completed the majority of Fallout 4 too. Fallout 76 is just - not a good game. There are aspects I quite like - the CAMP, the STASH boxes littered around so you don't have to fast travel all the time, the ability to modify weapons and amour, the huge open world to explore - I like all of that. What I hate is that it just doesn't feel like a Fallout game, the storyline just isn't there - I don't just start playing and realise literal hours have passed. There's no NPCs, no companions and worst of all there's no Dogmeat. I mean, sure other companions I understand, it's an online only game, I can see how running around with a crew could become combersome but - I miss my doggo! I can't stand that it's online only - sure give us the option to but I've never been a fan of being forced to play online, I game to relax, not to interact with others - plus no pause is extremely annoying. The graphics are terrible considering what other companies have come out with in 2018, it feels like FO3 graphics. The limit on the STASH box is currently 600lbs but mine is full and I keep having to get rid of stuff that I actually need. The repetitive going back and forth on missions and having to travel from one side of the map to the other while doing a mission is extremely frustrating, especially considering you're pretty much always carrying too much stuff (you literally need a ton of weapons, ammo, food & water to survive).
Overall I don't love it, but I don't hate it.
In short;
Was it worth the $120 preorder price? F**k no.
Is it something I'll play complusively until I've done everything?
No.
Does it ensare you and leave you excited to play again?
No.
Does it exceed Bethesda's big exciting lead up to release?
Certainly not.
Is it the worst game ever?
No, not really.
Is it truly a Fallout game?
Nope.
Does it feel like a dodgy, half-assed turd that the developers crapped out to make money?
Why, yes, yes it does.
Is it a game for Fallout fans?
Maybe, if you're into online play with friends then I guess? If you look past all the bugs, the sub-par graphics and the dull unimaginative storyline sure, this might be a game for you.
Would I recommend it?
No, not unless it's in the $20 bin at EB and you have literally NOTHING else to play.
I'm just saying if this game were a puddle, I could stand in it bare foot and not get my feet wet - that's how much depth it has...
It isn't the *worst* thing I've spent money on (Technomancer takes that spot with Recore as a close second), but it's definitely not something to play if you're a Fallout fan. Just stick to the old stuff, it's waaaay better...
Overall I don't love it, but I don't hate it.
In short;
Was it worth the $120 preorder price? F**k no.
Is it something I'll play complusively until I've done everything?
No.
Does it ensare you and leave you excited to play again?
No.
Does it exceed Bethesda's big exciting lead up to release?
Certainly not.
Is it the worst game ever?
No, not really.
Is it truly a Fallout game?
Nope.
Does it feel like a dodgy, half-assed turd that the developers crapped out to make money?
Why, yes, yes it does.
Is it a game for Fallout fans?
Maybe, if you're into online play with friends then I guess? If you look past all the bugs, the sub-par graphics and the dull unimaginative storyline sure, this might be a game for you.
Would I recommend it?
No, not unless it's in the $20 bin at EB and you have literally NOTHING else to play.
I'm just saying if this game were a puddle, I could stand in it bare foot and not get my feet wet - that's how much depth it has...
It isn't the *worst* thing I've spent money on (Technomancer takes that spot with Recore as a close second), but it's definitely not something to play if you're a Fallout fan. Just stick to the old stuff, it's waaaay better...
Amanda (96 KP) rated People Like Us in Books
Mar 12, 2019
Ever watched that show Pretty Little Liars or Riverdale (RIP Luke Perry) and think to yourself, this is such a stupid teenager drama show...and yet I can't stop watching or I need to know what happens next? This book doesn't read like Riverdale, but it definitely reads like an episode or another book of Pretty Little Liars. I will say that it reads like that, and a little like Karen M. McManus' novel, One of Us is Lying.
So we have Katherine "Kay" at a boarding school called, Bates. She's there for a soccer and hopes to get an athletic scholarship. One night, her and her few friends come across a body, a student and things begin to unravel about Kay and now she's being blackmailed.
Here's Kay in a nutshell. She DID NOT come from money, though she is trying her best to dress and act the part - including being the bully. It's hard to say if she goes a long with most of the stuff her friends did and said, or if she is genuinely a 'mean girl'. Although, after a prank that was her idea comes to play, my sympathy for her slowly weakens.
She gets a link to this revenge blog and it works along with algorithm that if she doesn't get a student off the class roster (meaning getting them expelled) then information about her is leaked to the police that could put her in prison. How it works is the blog is a stove and it opens for a 'recipe'. The recipe is a poem and sometimes had photos or information that incriminates her friends. One of them, for example, hints that one of her friends cheats on her tests.
To add to the drama, Kay struggles with her romantic feelings for her best friend (though I often wonder why) Brie whom has a girlfriend. They've gone through the whole will they or will they not bit, and although Brie has a girlfriend, Kay still struggles. She also has conflicting feelings for her ex-boyfriend, Spencer, who cheated on her...oddly enough with the student they found dead.
Kay's life is one long soap opera. She harbors a secret about her brother's murder and her best friend's suicide (before she was shipped to Bates). Her and her group of friends makes me think of the reasons of why I didn't hang out with a group of girls growing up. They are catty and vengeful. Sometimes guys aren't any better, but I had more guy friends than I did girl friends growing up.
I dozed off on most of the book because Kay started babbling on about certain things that just didn't keep my interest. The more she told her story the more intrigued I did get, but in the end, I still couldn't really feel much for her. I'm not sure if that was the intention of the story - perhaps if it were, it wouldn't be told by Kay. The characters were not likable, but I think that was the point.
I didn't even care for Brie whom is basically the only NICE girl in the whole bunch. I can understand her being hurt by Kay (and Kay has said and done some things to warrant that), but at the same time, I wonder what it is about her that has Kay wanting her so badly.
I liked Nola for a moment because she was a computer nerd and liked literature, but that didn't last long at all. The only character I felt for was a cat named Hunter...poor kitty.
The story as a whole wasn't bad. Each side story came around in full circle and nothing was left out or left unresolved. I didn't even have a problem with how it ended, because honestly, how else would it have ended? Kay expresses regret for her actions and the things she has said, but if the story were to continue into a book two, I better see some major growth from everything she endured.
So we have Katherine "Kay" at a boarding school called, Bates. She's there for a soccer and hopes to get an athletic scholarship. One night, her and her few friends come across a body, a student and things begin to unravel about Kay and now she's being blackmailed.
Here's Kay in a nutshell. She DID NOT come from money, though she is trying her best to dress and act the part - including being the bully. It's hard to say if she goes a long with most of the stuff her friends did and said, or if she is genuinely a 'mean girl'. Although, after a prank that was her idea comes to play, my sympathy for her slowly weakens.
She gets a link to this revenge blog and it works along with algorithm that if she doesn't get a student off the class roster (meaning getting them expelled) then information about her is leaked to the police that could put her in prison. How it works is the blog is a stove and it opens for a 'recipe'. The recipe is a poem and sometimes had photos or information that incriminates her friends. One of them, for example, hints that one of her friends cheats on her tests.
To add to the drama, Kay struggles with her romantic feelings for her best friend (though I often wonder why) Brie whom has a girlfriend. They've gone through the whole will they or will they not bit, and although Brie has a girlfriend, Kay still struggles. She also has conflicting feelings for her ex-boyfriend, Spencer, who cheated on her...oddly enough with the student they found dead.
Kay's life is one long soap opera. She harbors a secret about her brother's murder and her best friend's suicide (before she was shipped to Bates). Her and her group of friends makes me think of the reasons of why I didn't hang out with a group of girls growing up. They are catty and vengeful. Sometimes guys aren't any better, but I had more guy friends than I did girl friends growing up.
I dozed off on most of the book because Kay started babbling on about certain things that just didn't keep my interest. The more she told her story the more intrigued I did get, but in the end, I still couldn't really feel much for her. I'm not sure if that was the intention of the story - perhaps if it were, it wouldn't be told by Kay. The characters were not likable, but I think that was the point.
I didn't even care for Brie whom is basically the only NICE girl in the whole bunch. I can understand her being hurt by Kay (and Kay has said and done some things to warrant that), but at the same time, I wonder what it is about her that has Kay wanting her so badly.
I liked Nola for a moment because she was a computer nerd and liked literature, but that didn't last long at all. The only character I felt for was a cat named Hunter...poor kitty.
The story as a whole wasn't bad. Each side story came around in full circle and nothing was left out or left unresolved. I didn't even have a problem with how it ended, because honestly, how else would it have ended? Kay expresses regret for her actions and the things she has said, but if the story were to continue into a book two, I better see some major growth from everything she endured.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 17, 2018
Entertaining film - but the book was better
I loved the book.
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Tutoring: English live lesson
Education and Book
App
Tutoring, awards winning application for online language private lessons! Tutoring provides a...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Wife (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021 (Updated Sep 28, 2021)
Glenn Close … #robbed.
I missed “The Wife” when it came out in September, but finally caught it a few weeks ago. (Been a busy time at work so have a bit of a backlog of reviews!).
The Plot.
Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) is the doting wife of internationally renowned writer Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce). As we start the film, Joe has just received a call from Stockholm. No, it’s not an “amusing story about a goat” (for any MM2 fans out there). It’s notification that he is to receive the Nobel prize for literature. As Joan listens to the news on the extension, there is something in her eyes that betrays mixed emotions.
They travel to Sweden (on Concorde, obviously) with their son Max (Max Irons) – a writer at the start of his career. Max and Joe have a strained relationship.
Also in Stockholm is Nathanial Bone (Christian Slater) – the bane of Joe’s life, since he seems insistent on writing the biography of the great man. As Nathanial picks through the history of the couple, things start to unravel in unexpected ways.
What a performance!
The heart of this film, and the main reason for watching what is really a bit of a pot-boiler, is the performance by Glenn Close. It’s a remarkable demonstration of the acting craft and 110% Oscar worthy.
Don’t get me wrong…. as I watched the Oscars live in the wee-hours of Monday morning I let out a WHOOP of joy when our own national treasure Olivia Colman picked up the award. But I have to say that I think Glenn Close was rather robbed. Close can act brilliantly without saying a single word. In fact most of her best scenes are reaction shots to what she is listening to.
In comparison I found Jonathan Pryce to be a soupçon over-the-top as the feted writer, and I didn’t find the portrayal of Bone by Slater to be terribly convincing. So it’s a very mixed acting bag in my view.
Utterly gorgeous in a way that only Swedish women can be is Karin Franz Körlof as the personal photographer Linnea. She can also act!
A perfectly pleasant movie
Directed by Swedish director Björn Runge and with a screenplay by Jane Anderson, it’s a perfectly pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. The story is intriguing enough to keep your interest, although it plays its hand so early that the simmering suspense element ebbs out of the film. A final “Sixth Sense” style of reveal might have been much more effective.
But this is above all a film to relish the performance of Close: the facial acting during the speech at the awards ceremony is something that should be studied at acting schools for years to come.
The Plot.
Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) is the doting wife of internationally renowned writer Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce). As we start the film, Joe has just received a call from Stockholm. No, it’s not an “amusing story about a goat” (for any MM2 fans out there). It’s notification that he is to receive the Nobel prize for literature. As Joan listens to the news on the extension, there is something in her eyes that betrays mixed emotions.
They travel to Sweden (on Concorde, obviously) with their son Max (Max Irons) – a writer at the start of his career. Max and Joe have a strained relationship.
Also in Stockholm is Nathanial Bone (Christian Slater) – the bane of Joe’s life, since he seems insistent on writing the biography of the great man. As Nathanial picks through the history of the couple, things start to unravel in unexpected ways.
What a performance!
The heart of this film, and the main reason for watching what is really a bit of a pot-boiler, is the performance by Glenn Close. It’s a remarkable demonstration of the acting craft and 110% Oscar worthy.
Don’t get me wrong…. as I watched the Oscars live in the wee-hours of Monday morning I let out a WHOOP of joy when our own national treasure Olivia Colman picked up the award. But I have to say that I think Glenn Close was rather robbed. Close can act brilliantly without saying a single word. In fact most of her best scenes are reaction shots to what she is listening to.
In comparison I found Jonathan Pryce to be a soupçon over-the-top as the feted writer, and I didn’t find the portrayal of Bone by Slater to be terribly convincing. So it’s a very mixed acting bag in my view.
Utterly gorgeous in a way that only Swedish women can be is Karin Franz Körlof as the personal photographer Linnea. She can also act!
A perfectly pleasant movie
Directed by Swedish director Björn Runge and with a screenplay by Jane Anderson, it’s a perfectly pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. The story is intriguing enough to keep your interest, although it plays its hand so early that the simmering suspense element ebbs out of the film. A final “Sixth Sense” style of reveal might have been much more effective.
But this is above all a film to relish the performance of Close: the facial acting during the speech at the awards ceremony is something that should be studied at acting schools for years to come.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Polar (2019) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
The Black Kaiser - 8/10
Polar is a 2019 neo-noir/action movie based on the Dark Horse Comics, webcomic series Polar: Came From The Cold, written by Victor Santos. It is directed by Jonas Akerlund and written by Jayson Rothwell. Starring Mads Mikkelsen, Vanessa Hudgens, Katheryn Winnick, and Matt Lucas.
Duncan Vizla, a.k.a. "the Black Kaiser" (Mads Mikkelsen), is an assassin for the Damocles corporation. It is company policy that all assassins retire at age 50. He checks with a doctor about his health which is good and his accountant about his wealth; which having made the maximum pension fund contributions as possible, has him set for life. In 14 days, on his 50th birthday, he'll be entitled to a payout of $8 million dollars. Mr. Blut (Matt Lucas), has Vivian (Katheryn Winnick), Duncan's handler, contact him for one last mission. Unbeknownst to Duncan this is a plan to have him killed to avoid paying out his pension.
This me was awesome despite what critics say. I read a lot of bad comments talking about it being abhorrent and vulgar. It is rated TV-MA and not for kids and it is very adult. Plus it is a movie about assassins, people who kill for money, so what do you expect. I was surprised how much I liked the Black Kaiser character, since he didn't speak much during the film. Almost felt like a spaghetti-western in some ways, with the silent gunslinger aspect to it. I thought the film was very well done when it came to the acting, the action, and the plot. I'm sure that there are points to what the critics have said but the movie was too awesome for me to care. One thing, the main bad guy i didn't much care for. He did get me to not like him and with acting that's harder than getting people to like you. Also I enjoyed the group of assassins who are employed with the Damocles corporation, for the most part they were pretty interesting and diverse and added something extra to the film. And I was not prepared for Vanessa Hudgen's character but she had a surprising role and did very well too. I give this movie a 8/10.
Duncan Vizla, a.k.a. "the Black Kaiser" (Mads Mikkelsen), is an assassin for the Damocles corporation. It is company policy that all assassins retire at age 50. He checks with a doctor about his health which is good and his accountant about his wealth; which having made the maximum pension fund contributions as possible, has him set for life. In 14 days, on his 50th birthday, he'll be entitled to a payout of $8 million dollars. Mr. Blut (Matt Lucas), has Vivian (Katheryn Winnick), Duncan's handler, contact him for one last mission. Unbeknownst to Duncan this is a plan to have him killed to avoid paying out his pension.
This me was awesome despite what critics say. I read a lot of bad comments talking about it being abhorrent and vulgar. It is rated TV-MA and not for kids and it is very adult. Plus it is a movie about assassins, people who kill for money, so what do you expect. I was surprised how much I liked the Black Kaiser character, since he didn't speak much during the film. Almost felt like a spaghetti-western in some ways, with the silent gunslinger aspect to it. I thought the film was very well done when it came to the acting, the action, and the plot. I'm sure that there are points to what the critics have said but the movie was too awesome for me to care. One thing, the main bad guy i didn't much care for. He did get me to not like him and with acting that's harder than getting people to like you. Also I enjoyed the group of assassins who are employed with the Damocles corporation, for the most part they were pretty interesting and diverse and added something extra to the film. And I was not prepared for Vanessa Hudgen's character but she had a surprising role and did very well too. I give this movie a 8/10.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Hunt for Red October (1990) in Movies
Jul 15, 2020
Boring
I spent a minute trying to figure out a logline for this movie and I couldn’t quite get a grasp on how to put it into words. Something about a submarine led by a defective Soviet commander headed for American soil and special agent Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin) having to hunt him down. That’s the best I can do.
Acting: 10
Performances were strong across the board and is not where the movie fell flat in the slightest. Alec Baldwin delivers as Ryan with a sharp charisma that makes the movie just slightly more bearable. I was also impressed with Sean Connery’s role as villain Marko Ramius. Definitely the type of guy you love to hate and Connery did a solid job of bringing him to life.
Beginning: 8
Wasn’t 100% bought in after the first ten minutes, but enough happened to make me want to watch more. While I have seen way better movies in my day, I have definitely seen way worse beginnings too. It gives you a bit of story while creating excitement and intrigue for the story.
Characters: 5
The acting was fine. The characters, on the other hand, bored the absolute hell out of me. None of their storylines or backgrounds compelled me to ultimately care about the story as a whole. How many times have I said bad characters breed bad movies? Couldn’t be truer here.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
This movie relies a lot on smoke and mirrors. First you see a submarine, then it disappears. You see a missile, then it’s gone. After awhile the parlor trick gets old and so does the story. It felt like their action sequences suffered from a lower budget.
Conflict: 5
The action was mediocre at best. For this to be a movie about dueling submarines, there certainly aren’t a lot of dueling submarines. I can’t think of a better way to say this: This movie is really boring. There is way too much close-quarters talk and not enough actually happening.
Entertainment Value: 6
For every solid moment The Hunt For Red October brings, it gives you more scenes of people just sitting around discussing strategy. The high points were few and far between. It’s not a total dumpster fire, but I was certainly hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 2
Plot: 10
Resolution: 2
Overall: 57
Contrary to what you might think, I hate shitting on movies. Sometimes, as is the case for The Hunt For Red October, it’s unavoidable. With such a stellar cast, I was hoping for more.
Acting: 10
Performances were strong across the board and is not where the movie fell flat in the slightest. Alec Baldwin delivers as Ryan with a sharp charisma that makes the movie just slightly more bearable. I was also impressed with Sean Connery’s role as villain Marko Ramius. Definitely the type of guy you love to hate and Connery did a solid job of bringing him to life.
Beginning: 8
Wasn’t 100% bought in after the first ten minutes, but enough happened to make me want to watch more. While I have seen way better movies in my day, I have definitely seen way worse beginnings too. It gives you a bit of story while creating excitement and intrigue for the story.
Characters: 5
The acting was fine. The characters, on the other hand, bored the absolute hell out of me. None of their storylines or backgrounds compelled me to ultimately care about the story as a whole. How many times have I said bad characters breed bad movies? Couldn’t be truer here.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
This movie relies a lot on smoke and mirrors. First you see a submarine, then it disappears. You see a missile, then it’s gone. After awhile the parlor trick gets old and so does the story. It felt like their action sequences suffered from a lower budget.
Conflict: 5
The action was mediocre at best. For this to be a movie about dueling submarines, there certainly aren’t a lot of dueling submarines. I can’t think of a better way to say this: This movie is really boring. There is way too much close-quarters talk and not enough actually happening.
Entertainment Value: 6
For every solid moment The Hunt For Red October brings, it gives you more scenes of people just sitting around discussing strategy. The high points were few and far between. It’s not a total dumpster fire, but I was certainly hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 2
Plot: 10
Resolution: 2
Overall: 57
Contrary to what you might think, I hate shitting on movies. Sometimes, as is the case for The Hunt For Red October, it’s unavoidable. With such a stellar cast, I was hoping for more.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Insidious (2010) in Movies
May 12, 2018
I finally have access to all the Insidious films. Because of this, I’m in the process of re-watching the first two – something I haven’t done since their initial release. I watched the first of the films yesterday and my thoughts are a bit mixed on it. Don’t get me wrong – I like the movie, but I think it’s PG-13 rating held it back a bit.
Dalton (Ty Simpkins) is, undoubtedly, the central figure of the story. His role throughout much of the movie is to lay comatose in a bed whilst demons fight for possession of his body. He’s got two siblings, a brother named Foster (I think I got that right) and a sister named Cali. His parents, Renai (Rose Byrne) and Josh (Patrick Wilson) are the supposed doting parents – Josh on the other hand could benefit from an actor that’s a bit more invested in his role. I could feel him rolling his eyes between scenes, he was so unenthused.
The plot of Insidious is fairly straightforward, though there is at least one glaring continuity issue that we encounter. For the most part it’s pretty standard haunting and possession, but somehow halfway through the movie (okay, maybe a little later than that) two characters vanish completely. Foster and Cali, the entire time we’re dealing with the Further – another plane of existence – are nowhere to be found. No one’s worried about their safety, no one’s trying to protect them. They’re just… gone. Unless I missed something critical in which they were sent off to a friend’s house or something, then we’ve got a glaring plot hole that gives this film a bit of a blemish when it comes to its polish.
PG-13 is the rating given to a horror film whose goal is to make money. The whole reason it doesn’t cross that boundary is so that all the teenagers can go to the theatre without their parents for what they hope will be a good scare. I learned this the hard way when I had to walk out of the Prom Night remake because kids wouldn’t shut up. (As a result, I rarely go to see a movie that is PG-13.) In Insidious we see the affects of this in the severity of the “hauntings.” Even the demons are downplayed – there’s a distinct lack of violence in the film that one might expect when a powerful entity is trying to take hold of a kid’s body. Sure, we’ve got a few bloody handprints, a little bit of poltergeist-like activity, but that’s it. It’s most stuff you’d expect to see in a scary movie directed at children, with the addition of a few jump-scares that rely heavily on auditory senses.
Needless to say, there are far worse movies than Insidious out there and I still intend to watch the other films. I’m a bit indecisive on how I want to rate this – I enjoyed watching it up until things get a bit silly toward the end, where the Further is involved. At the same time, I don’t dislike the movie. That said, I’ve decided to go with a three out of five.
Dalton (Ty Simpkins) is, undoubtedly, the central figure of the story. His role throughout much of the movie is to lay comatose in a bed whilst demons fight for possession of his body. He’s got two siblings, a brother named Foster (I think I got that right) and a sister named Cali. His parents, Renai (Rose Byrne) and Josh (Patrick Wilson) are the supposed doting parents – Josh on the other hand could benefit from an actor that’s a bit more invested in his role. I could feel him rolling his eyes between scenes, he was so unenthused.
The plot of Insidious is fairly straightforward, though there is at least one glaring continuity issue that we encounter. For the most part it’s pretty standard haunting and possession, but somehow halfway through the movie (okay, maybe a little later than that) two characters vanish completely. Foster and Cali, the entire time we’re dealing with the Further – another plane of existence – are nowhere to be found. No one’s worried about their safety, no one’s trying to protect them. They’re just… gone. Unless I missed something critical in which they were sent off to a friend’s house or something, then we’ve got a glaring plot hole that gives this film a bit of a blemish when it comes to its polish.
PG-13 is the rating given to a horror film whose goal is to make money. The whole reason it doesn’t cross that boundary is so that all the teenagers can go to the theatre without their parents for what they hope will be a good scare. I learned this the hard way when I had to walk out of the Prom Night remake because kids wouldn’t shut up. (As a result, I rarely go to see a movie that is PG-13.) In Insidious we see the affects of this in the severity of the “hauntings.” Even the demons are downplayed – there’s a distinct lack of violence in the film that one might expect when a powerful entity is trying to take hold of a kid’s body. Sure, we’ve got a few bloody handprints, a little bit of poltergeist-like activity, but that’s it. It’s most stuff you’d expect to see in a scary movie directed at children, with the addition of a few jump-scares that rely heavily on auditory senses.
Needless to say, there are far worse movies than Insidious out there and I still intend to watch the other films. I’m a bit indecisive on how I want to rate this – I enjoyed watching it up until things get a bit silly toward the end, where the Further is involved. At the same time, I don’t dislike the movie. That said, I’ve decided to go with a three out of five.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Haunted (Harrison Investigation, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
I picked up Haunted after I had finished [b:The Seance|959245|The Seance (Harrison Investigation, #5)|Heather Graham|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1255876724s/959245.jpg|944150], and I was unaware that they both feature Adam and Harrison Investigations. I'm all set to read [b:The Vision|731809|The Vision (Harrison Investigation, #3)|Heather Graham|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1177781638s/731809.jpg|717999] that I just picked up from the library. Even though I've completely juggled around the order of when they were written, it's lucky for me that they are standalones. In the prologue it gave background information about Adam's son, Josh, who was mentioned just briefly in The Seance, and he plays a big part in this book, so I was happy to find out all that information before I get to next book that features Harrison Investigations.
Now to get to the main story in Haunted...
Even though with the way Darcy was written you would think she was a Mary-Sue, she wasn't and I liked her just fine. Now Matt on the other hand, well he was a jerk, plain and simple. I never could like him much and that detracted a lot from the book. It seems that Heather Graham must make the male lead a hard-core skeptic that just will not believe (until the end of course) in anything paranormal and thinks the female lead is crazy or delusional or something. It would be nice if it was reversed or if maybe, just maybe, the hero is open-minded enough to say, well maybe there is 'something' out there that cannot be proven. *gasp* Is that even possible? Can a hero ever truly be open-minded? Not in these books. He has to be so narrow-minded that his thought-blocks must fit neatly into their right-shaped holes (e.g. triangle block into triangle hole, etc.).
I really enjoyed the whole Darcy/Josh/Adam/Ghost hunting thing. I thought the author did a good job describing how Darcy went about finding out about the ghosts and that's what made this book good. I really did like Darcy a lot and she was a sympathetic character who stood up for herself and acted like an adult with poise and class (unlike some other character I could mention). The mystery did keep me guessing because I was never quite sure who the ghost was or what had happened, although I had narrowed down who was behind everything to two people, leaning more on the actual culprit (yay me!), for lack of suspects. So overall, the mystery was very good, though I wish Ms. Graham would bring in more people so it isn't as easy to figure out. All in all, not as good as The Seance, but a good and entertaining read.
3.5 stars
I forgot to mention that there were tons of editing problems, which seem to be a mainstay in H.G.'s books. Once Clint's name is changed to Cliff and Josh was referred to as Matt, plus numerous other things that cropped up everywhere.
Now to get to the main story in Haunted...
Even though with the way Darcy was written you would think she was a Mary-Sue, she wasn't and I liked her just fine. Now Matt on the other hand, well he was a jerk, plain and simple. I never could like him much and that detracted a lot from the book. It seems that Heather Graham must make the male lead a hard-core skeptic that just will not believe (until the end of course) in anything paranormal and thinks the female lead is crazy or delusional or something. It would be nice if it was reversed or if maybe, just maybe, the hero is open-minded enough to say, well maybe there is 'something' out there that cannot be proven. *gasp* Is that even possible? Can a hero ever truly be open-minded? Not in these books. He has to be so narrow-minded that his thought-blocks must fit neatly into their right-shaped holes (e.g. triangle block into triangle hole, etc.).
I really enjoyed the whole Darcy/Josh/Adam/Ghost hunting thing. I thought the author did a good job describing how Darcy went about finding out about the ghosts and that's what made this book good. I really did like Darcy a lot and she was a sympathetic character who stood up for herself and acted like an adult with poise and class (unlike some other character I could mention). The mystery did keep me guessing because I was never quite sure who the ghost was or what had happened, although I had narrowed down who was behind everything to two people, leaning more on the actual culprit (yay me!), for lack of suspects. So overall, the mystery was very good, though I wish Ms. Graham would bring in more people so it isn't as easy to figure out. All in all, not as good as The Seance, but a good and entertaining read.
3.5 stars
I forgot to mention that there were tons of editing problems, which seem to be a mainstay in H.G.'s books. Once Clint's name is changed to Cliff and Josh was referred to as Matt, plus numerous other things that cropped up everywhere.