Search
Chasing Impossible (Pushing the Limits, #5)
Book
Tough and independent, 17-year-old Abby lets very few people into her inner circle. It’s common...
Katie McGarry Chasing Impossible Young Adult Young Adult Fiction
Believe: Boxing, Olympics and my life outside the ring
Book
At London 2012, Nicola Adams made history. The flyweight boxer became the first woman ever to win an...
Autobiography memoir sport
Chasing the Morning Sun: Flying Solo Round the World in a Homebuilt Aircraft - The Ultimate Adventure
Book
Ten years ago Manuel Queiroz declared his intention to fly solo around the world. Having just beaten...
Chasing Space: An Astronaut's Story of Grit, Grace and Second Chances
Book
In Chasing Space, Leland Melvin tackles stupendous obstacles with dogged determination, showing you...
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated More Than Music (Chasing The Dreams #1) in Books
Aug 13, 2020
147 of 200
Kindle
More than music ( chasing the dream book 1)
By Elizabeth Briggs
They can't resist each other, but their secret romance might tear their band apart....
Music major Maddie Taylor secretly dreams of a louder life, but geeky girls like her don't get to be rock stars. That is, until tattooed singer Jared Cross catches her playing guitar and invites her to join his band on The Sound, a reality TV show competition.
Once on the show, Maddie discovers there's more to Jared than his flirty smile and bad boy reputation. With each performance their attraction becomes impossible to ignore, but when the show pressures them to stay single, they're forced to keep their relationship secret.
As the competition heats up, Jared will do whatever it takes for his band to win, and Maddie must decide if following her dream is worth losing her heart.
Ok this is not something I would have picked up myself but the author was recommended to me by a friend It was a different series that was recommended but I always like to start from the first series. So I gave it a shot and I got a pleasant surprise! It was a sweet heart warming story of friendship l, love and the cost of a reality show. It’s characters were likeable and the story easy to follow. I will definitely carrying on with the series. Just goes to show you may not normally read a certain book but they are all worth a try!
Kindle
More than music ( chasing the dream book 1)
By Elizabeth Briggs
They can't resist each other, but their secret romance might tear their band apart....
Music major Maddie Taylor secretly dreams of a louder life, but geeky girls like her don't get to be rock stars. That is, until tattooed singer Jared Cross catches her playing guitar and invites her to join his band on The Sound, a reality TV show competition.
Once on the show, Maddie discovers there's more to Jared than his flirty smile and bad boy reputation. With each performance their attraction becomes impossible to ignore, but when the show pressures them to stay single, they're forced to keep their relationship secret.
As the competition heats up, Jared will do whatever it takes for his band to win, and Maddie must decide if following her dream is worth losing her heart.
Ok this is not something I would have picked up myself but the author was recommended to me by a friend It was a different series that was recommended but I always like to start from the first series. So I gave it a shot and I got a pleasant surprise! It was a sweet heart warming story of friendship l, love and the cost of a reality show. It’s characters were likeable and the story easy to follow. I will definitely carrying on with the series. Just goes to show you may not normally read a certain book but they are all worth a try!
Isaac Newton: Pocket Giants
Book
Isaac Newton had an extraordinary idea. He believed the physical universe and everything in it could...
Hara05 (11 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Jun 30, 2019
The Haunting Of Hill House has brought horror back.
In an era of horrors which use chewed up, over used clichés - ridiculous, poorly times jump scares, unrealistic gore and mundane character profiles, to name a few - this Netflix series was both nostalgic and fresh at the same time.
From the moment the series started, I was on the edge of my seat. It does such a good job of building tension and fear that it's impossible to take everything in, indeed, on second viewing I noticed things I had completely missed during my first viewing. This series doesn't rely on simple jump scares and musical scores to make the view scared - it's so much more polished and intricate than that. It isn't just a series of blood and gore, of murderers chasing pretty girls with a kitchen knife or teenagers playing with ouija boards. Yes, there are ghosts. Yes, it's based in a haunted house but there is so much more to it!
The depths this series goes to draws you in from minute one. The well fleshed out characters, the great acting, the clever dialogue all mingles together to create an atmosphere the viewer gets lost in and a family the viewer grows to love. The family which this series is centred around is relatable, charasmatic and mysterious all at the same time. The horror is sometimes simple, sometimes obvious but always believable.
It's not very often that a series can have you crying from fear and heartbreak at the same time. The Haunting of Hill House not only manages this but does it splendidly. It's beautiful, harrowing and haunting all at the same time.
This series should be welcomed by anybody who loves the horror genre. It echoes some of the classics and is capable of redefining modern horrors at the same time. It's so refreshing to see the genre stripped back and cleverly delivered. So much of the genre is so repetitive now that my expectations for this series were low. Needless to say, it smashes those expectations.
In an era of horrors which use chewed up, over used clichés - ridiculous, poorly times jump scares, unrealistic gore and mundane character profiles, to name a few - this Netflix series was both nostalgic and fresh at the same time.
From the moment the series started, I was on the edge of my seat. It does such a good job of building tension and fear that it's impossible to take everything in, indeed, on second viewing I noticed things I had completely missed during my first viewing. This series doesn't rely on simple jump scares and musical scores to make the view scared - it's so much more polished and intricate than that. It isn't just a series of blood and gore, of murderers chasing pretty girls with a kitchen knife or teenagers playing with ouija boards. Yes, there are ghosts. Yes, it's based in a haunted house but there is so much more to it!
The depths this series goes to draws you in from minute one. The well fleshed out characters, the great acting, the clever dialogue all mingles together to create an atmosphere the viewer gets lost in and a family the viewer grows to love. The family which this series is centred around is relatable, charasmatic and mysterious all at the same time. The horror is sometimes simple, sometimes obvious but always believable.
It's not very often that a series can have you crying from fear and heartbreak at the same time. The Haunting of Hill House not only manages this but does it splendidly. It's beautiful, harrowing and haunting all at the same time.
This series should be welcomed by anybody who loves the horror genre. It echoes some of the classics and is capable of redefining modern horrors at the same time. It's so refreshing to see the genre stripped back and cleverly delivered. So much of the genre is so repetitive now that my expectations for this series were low. Needless to say, it smashes those expectations.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
The Effects Just Aren't Good Enough
Ang Lee is a visionary Director that loves to push the envelope of advances in movie-making technology, so the plot contrivance of GEMINI MAN (a Government Assassin is being chased by his much younger clone) was right up his alley - and he makes good (enough) work of the technology that "de-ages" Will Smith and puts the older and younger version of himself on screen at the same time. This was also his 2nd film (after BILLY FLYNN'S LONG HALFTIME WALK) that Lee shot in 4K 3D at 120 frames per second (the "normal" shooting speed is 24 FPS).
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk (2008) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"As far as I'm concerned, that man's whole body is property of the U.S. army."
I will defend this gem until the day I die.
The Incredible Hulk is without a doubt one of the most underrated, underappreciated film's that I have ever seen. There it is. I'm just putting it out there. Don't worry, I have my reasons that I'll get into but if you don't like this film, if you hate this film even, I encourage you to read this review. I encourage this because I hope to open your eyes to how beautiful and tragic The Incredible Hulk is.
For one, let's take it back to May 1962 when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced to us, in his very own debut issue, the Hulk himself. According to interviews, Lee spoke of how this film truly captured the essence of the character and the comics. In those comics, General Thunderbolt Ross, along with the military, was always chasing Dr. Banner ever since the accident. This is portrayed brilliantly here by Louis Leterrier. I'm not a huge fan of his work but I got to give credit where credit's due.
I don't even know where to start for positives because there's so many. For one, Edward Norton is brilliant (yes brilliant) as Bruce Banner. His performance is so emotionally subdued, filled with great sadness and longing. They even show him suffering from PTSD, which has never been touched on with this character on film. Really great stuff on Norton's part. We also get to finally see Bruce Banner be a scientist. We've seen it in the future films sure, but not to this extent. Bruce is working with scraps, using solely his wits, in a third world country . . . just like in the comics.
The story of Hulk is really a tragic love story. I got serious King Kong vibes from the similar dynamic here and it's beautiful. The chemistry between Banner and Elizabeth Ross is great. It's so believable; two people put in an impossible situation and making it work. That's love.
Hulk's character is so well realized here. He suffers from PTSD like I said, but the actual monster himself is perfect. They even throw in a bit of a horror vibe for the first Hulk-out scene. Oh yeah, there's numerous Hulk-out scenes!!! There's so many great omages to the comics as well and I loved every bit of it.
Lastly, looking at it from a technical side it's great. The cinematography is extremely well done and a total feast for the eyes. The pacing is great and goes by like the snap of Thanos himself. The editing is top-notch. The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is one of my favorites of all time and is so iconic and beautiful. Finally, there's a serious tone. FINALLY. There are some well incorporated jokes but unlike some other Marvel films, it's not overbearing.
As for negatives, they are almost none to nonexistent. Really just nitpicks. The taxi scene is a bit unrealistic and silly. It's the only scene of humor that felt a bit forced and silly, yet I can easily ignore it. But since this is an analysis, I had to mention it. Also, unlike Ruffalo's Hulk, Norton's Hulk doesn't look very similar to Norton himself. Again, purely a nitpick.
Overall, I absolutely love The Incredible Hulk
The Incredible Hulk is without a doubt one of the most underrated, underappreciated film's that I have ever seen. There it is. I'm just putting it out there. Don't worry, I have my reasons that I'll get into but if you don't like this film, if you hate this film even, I encourage you to read this review. I encourage this because I hope to open your eyes to how beautiful and tragic The Incredible Hulk is.
For one, let's take it back to May 1962 when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced to us, in his very own debut issue, the Hulk himself. According to interviews, Lee spoke of how this film truly captured the essence of the character and the comics. In those comics, General Thunderbolt Ross, along with the military, was always chasing Dr. Banner ever since the accident. This is portrayed brilliantly here by Louis Leterrier. I'm not a huge fan of his work but I got to give credit where credit's due.
I don't even know where to start for positives because there's so many. For one, Edward Norton is brilliant (yes brilliant) as Bruce Banner. His performance is so emotionally subdued, filled with great sadness and longing. They even show him suffering from PTSD, which has never been touched on with this character on film. Really great stuff on Norton's part. We also get to finally see Bruce Banner be a scientist. We've seen it in the future films sure, but not to this extent. Bruce is working with scraps, using solely his wits, in a third world country . . . just like in the comics.
The story of Hulk is really a tragic love story. I got serious King Kong vibes from the similar dynamic here and it's beautiful. The chemistry between Banner and Elizabeth Ross is great. It's so believable; two people put in an impossible situation and making it work. That's love.
Hulk's character is so well realized here. He suffers from PTSD like I said, but the actual monster himself is perfect. They even throw in a bit of a horror vibe for the first Hulk-out scene. Oh yeah, there's numerous Hulk-out scenes!!! There's so many great omages to the comics as well and I loved every bit of it.
Lastly, looking at it from a technical side it's great. The cinematography is extremely well done and a total feast for the eyes. The pacing is great and goes by like the snap of Thanos himself. The editing is top-notch. The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is one of my favorites of all time and is so iconic and beautiful. Finally, there's a serious tone. FINALLY. There are some well incorporated jokes but unlike some other Marvel films, it's not overbearing.
As for negatives, they are almost none to nonexistent. Really just nitpicks. The taxi scene is a bit unrealistic and silly. It's the only scene of humor that felt a bit forced and silly, yet I can easily ignore it. But since this is an analysis, I had to mention it. Also, unlike Ruffalo's Hulk, Norton's Hulk doesn't look very similar to Norton himself. Again, purely a nitpick.
Overall, I absolutely love The Incredible Hulk
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).