Search
The Stone Killer (1973)
6.3
Rate It
Movie Watch
A new breed of anti-hero appeared in 1970s cinema. Obsession, violence and instability characterized...
Uncle Drew (2018)
5.8
Rate It
Movie Watch
After draining his life savings to enter a team in the Rucker Classic street ball tournament in...
comedy
Eleanor (1463 KP) rated Murder, etc. in Podcasts
Oct 22, 2019
Very drawn out (1 more)
Hard to understand some interviews
In Depth True Crime for the hardcore
A True-Crime podcast looking back on the murder of a narcotics cop and his father in the 1970s. The whole series is about this one crime looking at the larger picture of what was going on in Greenville SC at the time and if the wrong man; Charles Wakefield; was sent to death row for the crime.
This podcast leaves no stone unturned and the amount of investigation and time put into it is truly inspiring. Unfortunately, I don’t really have the attention span for it, I think I prefer my true crime in much broader brushstrokes this was just too dragged out to hold my interest. Many of the interviews are understandably with very old individuals who I found difficult to understand (accents may be an issue for me as well.) I’m sure for some who really want to be totally in on everything this will appeal. There is a whole community really invested in this investigation.
I’ve listened to 17 episodes but fallen asleep during many of them and i don’t think I’m going to finish it. If they do a summary episode may return for that.
This podcast leaves no stone unturned and the amount of investigation and time put into it is truly inspiring. Unfortunately, I don’t really have the attention span for it, I think I prefer my true crime in much broader brushstrokes this was just too dragged out to hold my interest. Many of the interviews are understandably with very old individuals who I found difficult to understand (accents may be an issue for me as well.) I’m sure for some who really want to be totally in on everything this will appeal. There is a whole community really invested in this investigation.
I’ve listened to 17 episodes but fallen asleep during many of them and i don’t think I’m going to finish it. If they do a summary episode may return for that.
Joni: The Anthology
Book
Nine Grammys. More than ten million albums sold. Named one of the greatest singers and songwriters...
Biography memoir
The Missing Monuments Murders
Book
In 1806, Jane Austen's relative, the Reverend Thomas Leigh, inherited huge estates and the mood in...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Dig (2021) in Movies
Jan 31, 2021
Acting from Fiennes and Mulligan - top notch (1 more)
Cinematography is gorgeous
Why make it so "man heavy" when history was otherwise? (1 more)
Found the asynchronous editing irritating
Archaeology with no fedora required
It’s 1939, and as World War 2 approaches, widower Edith Pretty (Carey Mulligan) hires rough and ready excavator Basil Brown (Ralph Fiennes) to dig into one of the ancient earth mounds on her property at the site that will become famous as Sutton Hoo in Suffolk. Requesting the help of her cousin Rory Lomax (Johnny Flynn) to photograph the effort, the site slowly gives up its Anglo-Saxon treasures attracting the attention of first the Ipswich museum and then the pompous Charles Phillips (Ken Stott) of the British Museum. A battle is on for both the control of the site and the resting place for the treasures found.
Against this backdrop there is a critical illness emerging, a son (Archie Barnes) and his attachment to the father figure of Brown and a potential romance between Rory and archaeologist Peggy Piggott, trapped in a loveless marriage.
Talent:
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Ralph Fiennes, Johnny Flynn, Lily James, Archie Barnes, Ken Stott, Monica Donlan.
Directed by: Simon Stone.
Written by: Moira Buffini (from the novel by John Preston).
Bullet points of my thoughts:
+ Superb acting by Mulligan and Fiennes – Oscar noms for both?
+ Young Archie Barnes impresses as the son Robert
+ Cinematography by Mike Eley shows the open Suffolk skies at their best
+ Based on fact, a fascinating historical record of the real excitement of uncovering the past
o The script deftly melds the archeology with the love story subplot: but was the latter really necessary?
– Curious “man heavy” script, replacing some of the historical female characters with men and making Peggy Piggott (Lily James) a bit of a klutz
– Asynchronous editing decision I found to be distracting and unnecessary.
For my full review, please see the video at https://youtu.be/m8Ad8B8dkSY .
Against this backdrop there is a critical illness emerging, a son (Archie Barnes) and his attachment to the father figure of Brown and a potential romance between Rory and archaeologist Peggy Piggott, trapped in a loveless marriage.
Talent:
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Ralph Fiennes, Johnny Flynn, Lily James, Archie Barnes, Ken Stott, Monica Donlan.
Directed by: Simon Stone.
Written by: Moira Buffini (from the novel by John Preston).
Bullet points of my thoughts:
+ Superb acting by Mulligan and Fiennes – Oscar noms for both?
+ Young Archie Barnes impresses as the son Robert
+ Cinematography by Mike Eley shows the open Suffolk skies at their best
+ Based on fact, a fascinating historical record of the real excitement of uncovering the past
o The script deftly melds the archeology with the love story subplot: but was the latter really necessary?
– Curious “man heavy” script, replacing some of the historical female characters with men and making Peggy Piggott (Lily James) a bit of a klutz
– Asynchronous editing decision I found to be distracting and unnecessary.
For my full review, please see the video at https://youtu.be/m8Ad8B8dkSY .
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Moonstone in Books
Nov 20, 2019
Of all the books I had to read at school, The Moonstone was probably the only novel I really enjoyed. It is one of the first 'whodunnit' type of books and, remarkably, it manages to hit virtually every requirement of the genre dead centre. If this book was written today, it would still be a classic.
The Moonstone of the title is a rare yellow diamond, stolen from an Indian shrine by colonialists. Thought to be unlucky it is left to the young Rachel Verinder. The night after her 18th birthday party the stone is stolen from her rooms, and the rest of the novel describes how the various players eventually manage to solve the crime.
The plot features twists and turns galore, false trails and red herrings enough for two detective stories. Although the crime involved is 'only' theft rather than the more usual murder it is no less engaging as a story. The characters are well drawn and - social reformer that Collins was - there are strong women and intelligent and interesting servants as well as the landed gentry and philanthropists that inhabit the world of country estates in the mid 19th century that the novel is set in.
One feature of the book is that the story is told from the viewpoint of a number of the players. Firstly (and for nearly half the book) we are introduced to the Verinders and the theft by Gabriel Betteredge, a long serving family retainer who is head of the staff and a sort of de facto butler. Betteredge's narrative is charming and witty, full of dry asides and observations. His habit of picking passages from Robinson Crusoe and applying them to daily life is a quirk that is completely in keeping with his character.
Once the story moves to London, the narrative is taken up by various other characters, sometimes just for a short journal entry, sometimes for extended periods of time. Collins imbues each of these parts with a different voice really skillfully, keeping each character very separate.
The solution to the mystery of who stole the diamond and why is convoluted but also very simple. The whole story is well crafted and fits together really well.
The only negative points really are those imposed on Collins by the time he was writing this. There is an overlong introduction about the diamond in India (it seems that in Victorian novels the long winded introduction is somehow expected by the reader) and the pace slows somewhat in London as there is a lot of description about the character's social standings and financial affairs that just aren't as relevant today.
Nevertheless this really is as good a book as I remember. I certainly rate Collins a lot higher than Charles Dickens as a writer. Definitely recommended for anyone who likes a detective mystery which will keep the reader guessing until the very end.
The Moonstone of the title is a rare yellow diamond, stolen from an Indian shrine by colonialists. Thought to be unlucky it is left to the young Rachel Verinder. The night after her 18th birthday party the stone is stolen from her rooms, and the rest of the novel describes how the various players eventually manage to solve the crime.
The plot features twists and turns galore, false trails and red herrings enough for two detective stories. Although the crime involved is 'only' theft rather than the more usual murder it is no less engaging as a story. The characters are well drawn and - social reformer that Collins was - there are strong women and intelligent and interesting servants as well as the landed gentry and philanthropists that inhabit the world of country estates in the mid 19th century that the novel is set in.
One feature of the book is that the story is told from the viewpoint of a number of the players. Firstly (and for nearly half the book) we are introduced to the Verinders and the theft by Gabriel Betteredge, a long serving family retainer who is head of the staff and a sort of de facto butler. Betteredge's narrative is charming and witty, full of dry asides and observations. His habit of picking passages from Robinson Crusoe and applying them to daily life is a quirk that is completely in keeping with his character.
Once the story moves to London, the narrative is taken up by various other characters, sometimes just for a short journal entry, sometimes for extended periods of time. Collins imbues each of these parts with a different voice really skillfully, keeping each character very separate.
The solution to the mystery of who stole the diamond and why is convoluted but also very simple. The whole story is well crafted and fits together really well.
The only negative points really are those imposed on Collins by the time he was writing this. There is an overlong introduction about the diamond in India (it seems that in Victorian novels the long winded introduction is somehow expected by the reader) and the pace slows somewhat in London as there is a lot of description about the character's social standings and financial affairs that just aren't as relevant today.
Nevertheless this really is as good a book as I remember. I certainly rate Collins a lot higher than Charles Dickens as a writer. Definitely recommended for anyone who likes a detective mystery which will keep the reader guessing until the very end.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Rochester Runes in Books
Jan 9, 2020
The Rochester Ruins is the second book in the series Freiyon Fables by Justin Hunt, too which the first book only received a 2 from me. The timeline this book and the first appear to overlap to some extent at the beginning. Old friends and foes, as well as new, make an appearance in this book as well.
Unlike the first book that detailed a lightning-tailed squirrel's journey through Freiyon this story follows the three human Rochester siblings. The three siblings., Robert, Charles, and Sarah move with their mother into their grandparents old manor. None of the children are exactly thrilled about the move and are surprised to find the manor to have traps in it. After finding a mysterious stone that unlocks a door at the end of a secret passage the children find themselves in Freiyon.
It is in this world of talking animals and sentient trees that they search for the rune stones that will lift their familys curse. The rune stones, once gathered together also have the ability to grant wishes. The Rochester siblings. use these wishes to aid them in protecting Freiyon from The Grabbers, who are also in search of the rune stones. This is an adventure that will bring their entire family together, but it may also tear some of them apart.
What I liked best was Freiyon still feeling a lot like Narnia. Then there is also the fact that this book is tied very nicely in with the first one. Some of the human characters even made me question if they are in any way related to the unnamed boy at the end of the first book, but that is just speculation on my part. What I did not like is just like the first book the writing felt oversimplified. At times it did seem like maybe this was on purpose with the goal of preventing the book from being too long. If that is the case than the book suffers from it. The ending also felt very confusing and as if it was unnecessary for things to turn out the way the did, but I dont want to give any major spoilers.
Once again I would suggest that middle school-aged children and some elementary students can visit the would of Freiyon. The violence that made me question how some parents of younger children might perceive this series even appeared to be a little less graphic this time around. I rate this book a 2 out of 4 just like the first. Once again the book seems to jump from one major sequence of events to another with only minimal transitioning. Still, the world itself is intriguing if only it was given a better description. The ending of this one also made it lose major points.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
Unlike the first book that detailed a lightning-tailed squirrel's journey through Freiyon this story follows the three human Rochester siblings. The three siblings., Robert, Charles, and Sarah move with their mother into their grandparents old manor. None of the children are exactly thrilled about the move and are surprised to find the manor to have traps in it. After finding a mysterious stone that unlocks a door at the end of a secret passage the children find themselves in Freiyon.
It is in this world of talking animals and sentient trees that they search for the rune stones that will lift their familys curse. The rune stones, once gathered together also have the ability to grant wishes. The Rochester siblings. use these wishes to aid them in protecting Freiyon from The Grabbers, who are also in search of the rune stones. This is an adventure that will bring their entire family together, but it may also tear some of them apart.
What I liked best was Freiyon still feeling a lot like Narnia. Then there is also the fact that this book is tied very nicely in with the first one. Some of the human characters even made me question if they are in any way related to the unnamed boy at the end of the first book, but that is just speculation on my part. What I did not like is just like the first book the writing felt oversimplified. At times it did seem like maybe this was on purpose with the goal of preventing the book from being too long. If that is the case than the book suffers from it. The ending also felt very confusing and as if it was unnecessary for things to turn out the way the did, but I dont want to give any major spoilers.
Once again I would suggest that middle school-aged children and some elementary students can visit the would of Freiyon. The violence that made me question how some parents of younger children might perceive this series even appeared to be a little less graphic this time around. I rate this book a 2 out of 4 just like the first. Once again the book seems to jump from one major sequence of events to another with only minimal transitioning. Still, the world itself is intriguing if only it was given a better description. The ending of this one also made it lose major points.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated I Am Not Okay With This in TV
Mar 3, 2020
Proof that Netflix can rule your life, in an OK way, I guess. Every time I have dropped in for the last two weeks, this is the show they went out of their way to push on me. I watched the trailer and thought hmm, I don’t get it… but after relentless publicity I ended up watching the entire first series within 36 hours of its release on February 26th. Which is easy enough to do, as the entire first series only lasts 2 1/2 hours, in 7 x 23 minute easy to swallow episodes. Another nice tactic for the attention deficient generation.
Based on the graphic novels of Charles Forsman, who also gave us The End of the F***ing World – an equally dark edged teen angst story, that has had 2 full seasons of similarly short episodes. It also continues the partnership of that series’ main director, British born Jonathon Entwistle, who seems happily stuck with this genre on his, as yet, limited CV. It stars the quirky charm of Sophia Lillis, best known from the It reboot movies, and Wyatt Oleff, also plucked from that franchise. And, oh yeah, it shares production credits with a small show called Stranger Things; so it has a pop culture pedigree 100% guaranteed to attract a young audience.
In terms of tone and direction, it does wobble at the beginning, but also shows a lot of promise, thanks largely to the watchability of Lillis, who is perfectly cast as a nervy, nerdy teen with a lot of smarts, but not too many friends. The humour is black, the satire subtle, and the delivery is disarmingly adult; on the surface this is a high school comedy, but underneath it is a fucked up, biting exploration of grief, paranoia and anger (mis)management – it pushes boundaries on content, visually and in use of language that only Netflix can endorse and get away with. Which of course is what audiences want!
The premise is that after the suicide of her father, 17 year old Sydney Novak is having some emotional issues beyond the normal teenage stuff of zits on your thighs. As she keeps a secret journal to document her worries and thoughts (heard in voice-over consistently, giving it a definite graphic novel thought bubble vibe) we are in from the start on the possibility she may have a dubious superpower linked to being pissed off.
It takes a while for that aspect to kick in, however, so don’t expect big, showy, superhero set pieces; this is a comedy drama that borrows from every teenage trope available, and is focussed more on the troubles of high school, a single mom and general growing pains. It is funny – I laughed, and found it a charming mix of something really modern feeling, but with retro vibes; it is clearly 2020, but could be 1985, a trick Stranger Things has taught them well.
Really, it is almost all over before it gets started, with these brief episode times – which is smart; no time to waste, so it moves along, and is always endearingly entertaining. In essence, what we have here is a 2 1/2 hour pilot show, chopped into bite sized chunks and released as a tease for the main show, which will be series 2. Think of it as an origin story, if you will. Undoubtedly, that 2nd series is already on the way. Early critical response is solid, and in about another month you will be hearing everyone and their cat talking about it, for sure.
The lack of originality didn’t massively bother me, as you could see what they were trying to do with it, and the large appeal is to recreate a teen world that feels familiar and comfortable, and then play with those preconceptions, choosing the right moments to flip it upside down. Which eventually it does. The final episode of seven is an absolute doozy! Talk about teasing cliff-hangers! They really know how to keep us hooked!
The best thing about it, by a country mile, is the obvious star quality of Sophia Lillis, who must surely use this as a stepping-stone to a fine career, if she can master the emotional scenes as well as the charming quirky ones, at which she already excels. She reminds me a lot of Ellen Page, without the unlikely gravitas… yet. There is time to mature. I will be there for season 2 for sure, so it will be exciting to find out where it all goes next – this is a big opportunity for a BIG little show. I am only half sure they won’t fuck it up…
Based on the graphic novels of Charles Forsman, who also gave us The End of the F***ing World – an equally dark edged teen angst story, that has had 2 full seasons of similarly short episodes. It also continues the partnership of that series’ main director, British born Jonathon Entwistle, who seems happily stuck with this genre on his, as yet, limited CV. It stars the quirky charm of Sophia Lillis, best known from the It reboot movies, and Wyatt Oleff, also plucked from that franchise. And, oh yeah, it shares production credits with a small show called Stranger Things; so it has a pop culture pedigree 100% guaranteed to attract a young audience.
In terms of tone and direction, it does wobble at the beginning, but also shows a lot of promise, thanks largely to the watchability of Lillis, who is perfectly cast as a nervy, nerdy teen with a lot of smarts, but not too many friends. The humour is black, the satire subtle, and the delivery is disarmingly adult; on the surface this is a high school comedy, but underneath it is a fucked up, biting exploration of grief, paranoia and anger (mis)management – it pushes boundaries on content, visually and in use of language that only Netflix can endorse and get away with. Which of course is what audiences want!
The premise is that after the suicide of her father, 17 year old Sydney Novak is having some emotional issues beyond the normal teenage stuff of zits on your thighs. As she keeps a secret journal to document her worries and thoughts (heard in voice-over consistently, giving it a definite graphic novel thought bubble vibe) we are in from the start on the possibility she may have a dubious superpower linked to being pissed off.
It takes a while for that aspect to kick in, however, so don’t expect big, showy, superhero set pieces; this is a comedy drama that borrows from every teenage trope available, and is focussed more on the troubles of high school, a single mom and general growing pains. It is funny – I laughed, and found it a charming mix of something really modern feeling, but with retro vibes; it is clearly 2020, but could be 1985, a trick Stranger Things has taught them well.
Really, it is almost all over before it gets started, with these brief episode times – which is smart; no time to waste, so it moves along, and is always endearingly entertaining. In essence, what we have here is a 2 1/2 hour pilot show, chopped into bite sized chunks and released as a tease for the main show, which will be series 2. Think of it as an origin story, if you will. Undoubtedly, that 2nd series is already on the way. Early critical response is solid, and in about another month you will be hearing everyone and their cat talking about it, for sure.
The lack of originality didn’t massively bother me, as you could see what they were trying to do with it, and the large appeal is to recreate a teen world that feels familiar and comfortable, and then play with those preconceptions, choosing the right moments to flip it upside down. Which eventually it does. The final episode of seven is an absolute doozy! Talk about teasing cliff-hangers! They really know how to keep us hooked!
The best thing about it, by a country mile, is the obvious star quality of Sophia Lillis, who must surely use this as a stepping-stone to a fine career, if she can master the emotional scenes as well as the charming quirky ones, at which she already excels. She reminds me a lot of Ellen Page, without the unlikely gravitas… yet. There is time to mature. I will be there for season 2 for sure, so it will be exciting to find out where it all goes next – this is a big opportunity for a BIG little show. I am only half sure they won’t fuck it up…