Search
Search results
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated The Book of Essie in Books
Dec 25, 2018
It's so hard to decide where to start with this book. First: it's amazing. Second: Content Warning. For a number of reasons. Rape. Incest. Gay Conversion Therapy. Suicide. Nothing extremely graphic; the most graphic concerns the conversion therapy, which is where the suicide occurs. That section was hard to read. A lot of sections were hard to read. But the book was SO GOOD. It's about Essie and Roarke's escape from all that, so ultimately it focuses on the future, and it's a hopeful, light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel kind of book. But daaaaang these topics.
I loved so many of the characters here. Essie and Roarke, Roarke's best friend Blake, Liberty, the reporter, her boyfriend and her camerawoman. They're all amazing. Essie's determination, Roarke's courage, Blake's understanding - every character has something to offer in this book. The way Liberty's history entwines with Essie's, so she knows where she's coming from and can offer advice from experience, and how Liberty flashes back to her childhood so the reader understands her conflicts - it's all just so amazing.
I identify pretty closely with a lot of this book myself; I was raised very conservative Christian, though at least not in a crazy cult like Liberty was. But the way Liberty talks about her boyfriend challenging her beliefs and waking her up from them hit very close to home. It was weird to see it on the page.
"I had been home as well, a painful few months during which I began to see my parents, our family, and our church as Mike might see them, as anyone who was not us would see them. I still loved my parents, very much, but I was also deeply ashamed. I began to wonder what would have happened if I'd seen it earlier....I decided that I would not go home again."
I was cheering for Essie as she broke free of her bigoted family. Every step of the way. And Roarke - oh, Roarke, who my heart broke for, who stepped up to the plate and loved Essie in his own way, and gave Essie what she needed. It helped that Essie offered him precisely what he needed, too, but I didn't expect how their relationship evolved.
I loved this book, start to finish. This is definitely one of my favorites of 2018.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
I loved so many of the characters here. Essie and Roarke, Roarke's best friend Blake, Liberty, the reporter, her boyfriend and her camerawoman. They're all amazing. Essie's determination, Roarke's courage, Blake's understanding - every character has something to offer in this book. The way Liberty's history entwines with Essie's, so she knows where she's coming from and can offer advice from experience, and how Liberty flashes back to her childhood so the reader understands her conflicts - it's all just so amazing.
I identify pretty closely with a lot of this book myself; I was raised very conservative Christian, though at least not in a crazy cult like Liberty was. But the way Liberty talks about her boyfriend challenging her beliefs and waking her up from them hit very close to home. It was weird to see it on the page.
"I had been home as well, a painful few months during which I began to see my parents, our family, and our church as Mike might see them, as anyone who was not us would see them. I still loved my parents, very much, but I was also deeply ashamed. I began to wonder what would have happened if I'd seen it earlier....I decided that I would not go home again."
I was cheering for Essie as she broke free of her bigoted family. Every step of the way. And Roarke - oh, Roarke, who my heart broke for, who stepped up to the plate and loved Essie in his own way, and gave Essie what she needed. It helped that Essie offered him precisely what he needed, too, but I didn't expect how their relationship evolved.
I loved this book, start to finish. This is definitely one of my favorites of 2018.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
I didn't think my face could smile for 2 hours and 41 minutes straight!
Guess what? I ventured out on my day off and went to the theatre for the first time in 2019! (I'm such a loser!)
There are so many QT fans out there and probably just as many who think his films are trashy and pointless. As a true film fan, I can't not love not only his unique approach to film-making, but also his appreciation for the art of film and the constant homages he pays to film of year's past.
The first thing to talk about is the film's perfect tone and look of 1969. The costumes, hairstyles and music of the period was right on, but even more than that was the art direction and cinematography. Almost every scene has a vintage movie poster, retro theatre marquee or period television pram playing in the background. This helps you immerse yourself in this cinematic landscape almost immediately.
Can I also say the movie had opening credits! (Bring them back please !?!)
Basically, a Hollywood television/B movie actor and his personal stuntman navigate their Hollywood lifestyles in 1969 amidst the Playboy Mansion and the Charles Manson cult. The roller coaster goes from movie sets to retro Hollywood and everywhere in between. We also meet Sharon Tate. She loves her world of budding stardom and basks in the opportunity to be famous.
QT takes his usual liberties with historical facts, but can't say too much more than that here. If you are used to this in his other films like Inglorious Basterds, it won't bother you here either. He always seems to manage to make every actor look great and brings the best out of them and this film is no exception. Even actors with smaller roles like Al Pacino, Dakota Fanning and Luke Perry shine in their limited screen time.
As usual, his score was playing constantly throughout the film and complemented the situations remarkably well. I am sure I will be downloading some of them for myself later on.
QT has talked about retiring which would be a shame. I have pretty much loved everything he has ever done so losing a truly one of a kind cinematic voice such as his at such a young age would be truly heartbreaking.
There are so many QT fans out there and probably just as many who think his films are trashy and pointless. As a true film fan, I can't not love not only his unique approach to film-making, but also his appreciation for the art of film and the constant homages he pays to film of year's past.
The first thing to talk about is the film's perfect tone and look of 1969. The costumes, hairstyles and music of the period was right on, but even more than that was the art direction and cinematography. Almost every scene has a vintage movie poster, retro theatre marquee or period television pram playing in the background. This helps you immerse yourself in this cinematic landscape almost immediately.
Can I also say the movie had opening credits! (Bring them back please !?!)
Basically, a Hollywood television/B movie actor and his personal stuntman navigate their Hollywood lifestyles in 1969 amidst the Playboy Mansion and the Charles Manson cult. The roller coaster goes from movie sets to retro Hollywood and everywhere in between. We also meet Sharon Tate. She loves her world of budding stardom and basks in the opportunity to be famous.
QT takes his usual liberties with historical facts, but can't say too much more than that here. If you are used to this in his other films like Inglorious Basterds, it won't bother you here either. He always seems to manage to make every actor look great and brings the best out of them and this film is no exception. Even actors with smaller roles like Al Pacino, Dakota Fanning and Luke Perry shine in their limited screen time.
As usual, his score was playing constantly throughout the film and complemented the situations remarkably well. I am sure I will be downloading some of them for myself later on.
QT has talked about retiring which would be a shame. I have pretty much loved everything he has ever done so losing a truly one of a kind cinematic voice such as his at such a young age would be truly heartbreaking.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
Childs Play is a strange & maybe unnecessary reboot of a cult classic series of films that are still going strong. That being said this new film does manage to hold its own as a solo slasher & throws in enough new ideas to keep things feeling fresh & fun while most importantly of all staying faithful to the original formula. Lets get one thing out the way here the doll design of chucky in this film is horrendous & down right hideous looking (not in a good way) I get they needed to change the way he looked slightly but this doll side on especially has one ugly & bulky side profile. Its not so bad when he's face on or half shadowed in darkness & there are some genuinely creepy scenes involving the glowing eyes. Mark Hamill is the perfect choice voice wise & really does bring life, comedy & creepiness to an other wise soulless character. Plot is quite basic & characters are also fairly paint by numbers too but the cast do bring the movie to life with believable acting & fun interactions with each other. Atmosphere is built up nicely especially in the first half as its tense, unnerving & slowly paced making the viewer earn its kills & scares. These a big sense of nostalgia here too & the film does over all feel like it was made in the 80s despite its squeaky clean look at times. References, nods & inspirations litter the film too & genuinely feel clever rather than like a cheap 'remember this'. Delivering on gore this instalment has some nasty death scenes & the finally is deliciously over the top. I did however much prefer the first half over the second half as I found the slower pacing way more tense & creepy especially seeing this doll gradually learn to kill with almost a sense of naivety, innocence & good intention to it. You could also argue the creation of the doll is our fault as consumers & our desire to want more/connect more. Chucky could also be metaphor for how soulless & desensitized we have become too. Childs Play doesnt need to exist at all but manages to stand on its own two feet as a ridiculous, creepy, devilishly funny & extremely entertaining just dont expect anything ground breaking or intelligent & you will be sure to have a blast Buddi.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Noah's Ark Quest (Tyler Locke, #1) in Books
Nov 8, 2019
When engineer Tyler Locke rescues archaeologist Dilara Kenner from a helicopter crash he doesn't know whether to believe her story. She tells hum that a friend of hers was murdered by poison in front of her and that he sent her to find Locke. Since then she has been involved in accidents that she suspects are attempts to kill her too.
Initially skeptical, events (not to mention a bizarre plane crash) soon prove she is indeed correct. And that means that Locke and his friend and colleague Grant Westfield only have a few days to save the human race from destruction.
Positioned firmly in the adventure thriller mould this book is both a terrific example of the type and also refreshingly different. Locke makes a terrific heroic lead, using his engineering and scientific knowledge to gradually work out what is going on and how to stop it. He can handle himself in a fight as well, but the muscle is provided by ex-special forces Westfield. Between them they make a formiddable team - and the banter and wit between them and Kenner is so well written and natural.
The villain of the piece is suitably nasty, a sociopath masquerading as the leader of a religious cult. He shows a worrying tendency to be one step ahead of the heroes at every turn and his motives seem worryingly plausible.
The writing is taut and moves at a considerable pace. There are a number of action sequences - fights, battles, escapes and chases of all sorts - but each is written with an eye to detail and with minimal suspension of belief lending a sense of realism that keeps the whole story grounded.
The British title that I read - The Noah's Ark Quest - is I think a little misleading in that Noah's Ark itself is only of peripheral interest for the bulk of the story. The title of The Ark seems to fit a lot better, resonating as it does with both large ships and places of safety, both themes of note in the book.
This is a very impressive book and one that I thoroughly recommend to anyone who likes their thrillers fast and loud but with an undercurrent of intelligence. Morrison has a real talent for writing which deserves a much wider audience.
Rating: Some violence and some bad language but nothing gratuitous.
Initially skeptical, events (not to mention a bizarre plane crash) soon prove she is indeed correct. And that means that Locke and his friend and colleague Grant Westfield only have a few days to save the human race from destruction.
Positioned firmly in the adventure thriller mould this book is both a terrific example of the type and also refreshingly different. Locke makes a terrific heroic lead, using his engineering and scientific knowledge to gradually work out what is going on and how to stop it. He can handle himself in a fight as well, but the muscle is provided by ex-special forces Westfield. Between them they make a formiddable team - and the banter and wit between them and Kenner is so well written and natural.
The villain of the piece is suitably nasty, a sociopath masquerading as the leader of a religious cult. He shows a worrying tendency to be one step ahead of the heroes at every turn and his motives seem worryingly plausible.
The writing is taut and moves at a considerable pace. There are a number of action sequences - fights, battles, escapes and chases of all sorts - but each is written with an eye to detail and with minimal suspension of belief lending a sense of realism that keeps the whole story grounded.
The British title that I read - The Noah's Ark Quest - is I think a little misleading in that Noah's Ark itself is only of peripheral interest for the bulk of the story. The title of The Ark seems to fit a lot better, resonating as it does with both large ships and places of safety, both themes of note in the book.
This is a very impressive book and one that I thoroughly recommend to anyone who likes their thrillers fast and loud but with an undercurrent of intelligence. Morrison has a real talent for writing which deserves a much wider audience.
Rating: Some violence and some bad language but nothing gratuitous.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Blade (1998) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Blade is undeniably a product of it's time. It's the late 90s, everyone loves leather and shades, everyone loves Wesley Snipes, everyone loves dumb one liners, so the character of Blade is ripe for adaption.
But the importance of this gory action flick should absolutely not be understated. Not only was it the first proper big (ish) budget Marvel film, but it's pre dates Black Panther as the first superhero film with a black lead, and it pre dates The Punisher as the first R-rated Marvel blockbuster.
But in a pre X-Men world, comic book movies weren't a big deal at this point. I actually remember me and my friends sneakily renting and watching it (we were 10 at the time...) and none of them even knowing that Blade was even a comic book!
Here we are all these years later and the Blade trilogy is now remembered fondly (well, at least the first two are!)
Wesley Snipes is of course the star of this particular vehicle, and here, he is the most Wesley Snipes he's ever been. The cheesy one liners still come off well, and lend a nice comedic edge to the buckets of blood on display. The charm that he brings to the Blade character is the main reason why it's been hard to imagine anyone else in the role for so long (although I am here all day long for Mahershala Ali)
The other big character throughout the trilogy is Whistler, played by Kris Kristofferson, just generally being old, grumpy and badass, and is honestly the best character in the whole thing (here's hoping the MCU introduce a Whistler series on Disney+...)
Stephen Dorff plays Deacon Frost, the films villain, and he's really not much more than a generic superhero bad guy (the first of many).
The choreography and the fight scenes are pretty great, and the willingness to go hard R is what set Blade apart before comic book movies became a thing. It's sooooo bloody in parts, that it verges heavily into horror territory.
The CGI effects are utterly horrible by todays standards, but it's not used nearly enough to discredit the film too much.
Blade is a decent enough adaption of the cult Marvel series, and is a fun, gory blockbuster, but as mentioned, it's an important step in comic book cinema. Long live Blade!
But the importance of this gory action flick should absolutely not be understated. Not only was it the first proper big (ish) budget Marvel film, but it's pre dates Black Panther as the first superhero film with a black lead, and it pre dates The Punisher as the first R-rated Marvel blockbuster.
But in a pre X-Men world, comic book movies weren't a big deal at this point. I actually remember me and my friends sneakily renting and watching it (we were 10 at the time...) and none of them even knowing that Blade was even a comic book!
Here we are all these years later and the Blade trilogy is now remembered fondly (well, at least the first two are!)
Wesley Snipes is of course the star of this particular vehicle, and here, he is the most Wesley Snipes he's ever been. The cheesy one liners still come off well, and lend a nice comedic edge to the buckets of blood on display. The charm that he brings to the Blade character is the main reason why it's been hard to imagine anyone else in the role for so long (although I am here all day long for Mahershala Ali)
The other big character throughout the trilogy is Whistler, played by Kris Kristofferson, just generally being old, grumpy and badass, and is honestly the best character in the whole thing (here's hoping the MCU introduce a Whistler series on Disney+...)
Stephen Dorff plays Deacon Frost, the films villain, and he's really not much more than a generic superhero bad guy (the first of many).
The choreography and the fight scenes are pretty great, and the willingness to go hard R is what set Blade apart before comic book movies became a thing. It's sooooo bloody in parts, that it verges heavily into horror territory.
The CGI effects are utterly horrible by todays standards, but it's not used nearly enough to discredit the film too much.
Blade is a decent enough adaption of the cult Marvel series, and is a fun, gory blockbuster, but as mentioned, it's an important step in comic book cinema. Long live Blade!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Conversations With A Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The third of these was the most powerful for me. It was Confessions of a killer: the Ted Bundy tapes. I mean… I had no idea. His name was in my imagination somewhere as a candidate for pure evil, but I had no notion of the level of media hype and drama behind and before this. Which is why I recommend this absolutely comprehensive 4 part series as the best in this dubious category I have yet to see.
With the benefit of at least some hindsight, we can see in this case the epitome of such terms as “serial killer” and “sociopath”. Looking at it in pure terms of an idea worthy of dramatic exploration, then this is it! And, interestingly, to this date, besides the Zac Efron misfire, it is a story beyond worthy of correct telling, the basis of which should be the real footage. Because nothing is more bizarre than the real man and what he not only attempted to do, but actually did.
Take the basic idea that one individual is capable of murdering 30 plus women and girls over a period of two decades… then accept that he systematically went back to the corpses and committed acts of necropholia and decapitation without ever skipping a beat in what he perceived as his true persona as a competent lawyer in his own right, and you have the stuff of true nightmare. Add to that the fact that he escaped custody twice, and defended himself in court to such a charming extent that the judge himself admitted an affinity with him, and you have the recipe for something that transcends fact and becomes myth. Don’t believe me? Watch for yourself.
Do I agree with these cases being shown as entertainment? No, I don’t. Essentially. Because they are rarely told from the victim’s point of view. We have a fascination with an unsolved mystery and grim death that is undeniably curious. The cult of personality pervades, and we should be wary of why we get involved with this stuff. As addictive TV it is undeniably going to continue. Please be careful of the line between understanding and entertainment. God forbid I would give these shows a rating, as if it were a thing worthy of encouragement. It is the most undeniable yet horrific side effect of our media growth imaginable. Watch at your peril. But watch discerningly with interest.
With the benefit of at least some hindsight, we can see in this case the epitome of such terms as “serial killer” and “sociopath”. Looking at it in pure terms of an idea worthy of dramatic exploration, then this is it! And, interestingly, to this date, besides the Zac Efron misfire, it is a story beyond worthy of correct telling, the basis of which should be the real footage. Because nothing is more bizarre than the real man and what he not only attempted to do, but actually did.
Take the basic idea that one individual is capable of murdering 30 plus women and girls over a period of two decades… then accept that he systematically went back to the corpses and committed acts of necropholia and decapitation without ever skipping a beat in what he perceived as his true persona as a competent lawyer in his own right, and you have the stuff of true nightmare. Add to that the fact that he escaped custody twice, and defended himself in court to such a charming extent that the judge himself admitted an affinity with him, and you have the recipe for something that transcends fact and becomes myth. Don’t believe me? Watch for yourself.
Do I agree with these cases being shown as entertainment? No, I don’t. Essentially. Because they are rarely told from the victim’s point of view. We have a fascination with an unsolved mystery and grim death that is undeniably curious. The cult of personality pervades, and we should be wary of why we get involved with this stuff. As addictive TV it is undeniably going to continue. Please be careful of the line between understanding and entertainment. God forbid I would give these shows a rating, as if it were a thing worthy of encouragement. It is the most undeniable yet horrific side effect of our media growth imaginable. Watch at your peril. But watch discerningly with interest.
Lists for Writers - ideas for creative writing
Education and Reference
App
Lists for Writers is a great addition to any writer’s toolbox. Helpful to both novice and expert...
The Hardware Hacker: Adventures in Making and Breaking Hardware
Book
"Hardware, says Bunnie Huang, is a world without secrets: if you go deep enough, even the most...
Shade by Living Colour
Album Watch
'Shade,' their first album since the critically acclaimed 'The Chair In The Doorway' in 2009, is...
rock
Adam White (32 KP) rated The Silence (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2020
What did I just watch?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Where do I start? This movie is like watching, Birds, Bird Box, The Village and A Quiet Place all in one, the only problem is, it doesn't work at all.
I was really hoping with this being Directed by John R. Leonetti (cinematographer of such films as, The Conjuring, Insidious, The Mask) he would bring a lot to the table, nope and then I remembered he directed The Butterfly Effect 2 and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.
This movie being listed as a horror movie is a major let down, yes it does have a few jump scenes but I feel like the the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park made me jump a lot more, really the only scary part was the fact that someone checked off the okay for this storyline.
The storyline (not to give anything away) is a rush jump, which some movies need to move faster, I feel like this one moves way to fast, not enough is explained and way to much is left out.
One of the biggest keys of the story is that Ally Andrews (Kiernan Shipka) is teenage girl who lost her hearing a few years back, which helps the family and her during this time, as they all know how to use sign language. With that being said, the movie fails mean times at remembering the daughter is deaf!! With some members of the family using sign language, some not, sounds making her notice things, at some parts of the movie I forgot she lost her hearing.
I will skip over the crazy cult members, which trust me, I feel like NO one understands, I mean I get it but good God, give them some time of back story, nope kill them off in 11 minutes, that works too.
Skip forward to the end and bang, the lover is still healthy, and they are hunting the dam birds/dinosaurs now, no real dam answer on what happened, what's the plan of killing them off or nothing, it just ends!!
I recommend that you watch this movie just once, just enough to understand why some movies should be just left alone. Don't get me wrong, it could have worked, if they would have worked on the storyline more, and maybe followed the storyline, but hey, I have never made a movie before, so maybe I'm wrong about this all. 🤷♂️
I was really hoping with this being Directed by John R. Leonetti (cinematographer of such films as, The Conjuring, Insidious, The Mask) he would bring a lot to the table, nope and then I remembered he directed The Butterfly Effect 2 and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.
This movie being listed as a horror movie is a major let down, yes it does have a few jump scenes but I feel like the the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park made me jump a lot more, really the only scary part was the fact that someone checked off the okay for this storyline.
The storyline (not to give anything away) is a rush jump, which some movies need to move faster, I feel like this one moves way to fast, not enough is explained and way to much is left out.
One of the biggest keys of the story is that Ally Andrews (Kiernan Shipka) is teenage girl who lost her hearing a few years back, which helps the family and her during this time, as they all know how to use sign language. With that being said, the movie fails mean times at remembering the daughter is deaf!! With some members of the family using sign language, some not, sounds making her notice things, at some parts of the movie I forgot she lost her hearing.
I will skip over the crazy cult members, which trust me, I feel like NO one understands, I mean I get it but good God, give them some time of back story, nope kill them off in 11 minutes, that works too.
Skip forward to the end and bang, the lover is still healthy, and they are hunting the dam birds/dinosaurs now, no real dam answer on what happened, what's the plan of killing them off or nothing, it just ends!!
I recommend that you watch this movie just once, just enough to understand why some movies should be just left alone. Don't get me wrong, it could have worked, if they would have worked on the storyline more, and maybe followed the storyline, but hey, I have never made a movie before, so maybe I'm wrong about this all. 🤷♂️
