Search
Search results
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Shadow of Night in Books
May 23, 2019
Shadow of Night is the second book of Deborah Harkness’ All Souls Trilogy. As with the first one, Harkness takes you on adventure with her two protagonists, a witch named Diana and a vampire named Mathew. However, unlike the first one, this book is placed in Elizabethan England. Though the characters remain the same at heart, they change to better suit each other and the time period, as it is needed. With the imminent danger around every corner, the two are still not able to find piece, but Diana is able to learn more about her powers while she learns about her vampire lover in the process.
The details in the book are beautifully done and give a great visual to how it must have looked in 1590, where the main storyline is. The clothing style was accurate and there were a great many nods to our history. However, even though some of it remained factual, or close to, there was no denying that there was whole lot of fiction intertwined to help create the illusion that witches, vampires, and daemons exist. Harkness has a way with her facts and her words to create such a wonderful woven story to have the facts and the fictions mix that you could practically believe that it could all be true and we just would never know about it. I am again truly amazed by the story and how it seems to flow from the first book to the second book so flawlessly. I am hardly able to express such enthusiasm I have for Harkness and her wonderful tale. Once again, she was able to submerge me into a tale that caused emotions to wax and wane in my soul.
With all the tears, joys, and laughs this book was able to get out of me, I thought the ending felt a tad bit rushed, and though I am grateful for the speed of the final chapters and how it sort of answered more questions while leaving the conclusions of the trilogy still to come, I feel I would have liked a bit more out of the characters in their reunions. With new characters being introduces slightly at the end, it left a lot of questions on what was going on. I understand that the last book in this trilogy would be what wrapped everything up, but I can’t help but feeling a little more should have been included about some of the characters that had been introduced. I will hold my breath on this matter though and wait to see how the trilogy ends.
I did find that Harkness was able to pin point things normal couples seem to be troubled with, such as jealousy and secrets, never mind should that couple have secret abilities or be of another entire species. I was overjoyed to see that even fictional characters could do something I see normal people due in reality without all the melodramatics that most romance novels and romantic comedies would have us believe. To watch the main characters have the differences, stand their ground, and even argue about things like secrets, other people, and insecurities makes it feel more at home. Not every romance should be almost perfect with a few flaws; Couples fight and through the power of love, the stay together. Even though they have chance to fall apart, it never ceases to amaze how simple communication, even between a d vampire and a witch, can make troubles and misunderstandings cease to exist. Even with the couple at ends at times, and the world seemingly against them, it was fun to watch them explore the world and themselves, if not to just become themselves more and learn how powerful love and trust could be.
I believe this book is 3 stars out of 4 stars for it rating. It is truly an amazing book and has the potential to stand alone, it is clear that without certain prior knowledges, a reader could get lost at the end of what is happening. Shadow of Night is as beautifully written as was A Discovery of Witches and I definitely would recommend it, if the person was will to start at the beginning with A Discovery of Witches. Luckily both can be bought on Amazon and in other places that sell books.
The details in the book are beautifully done and give a great visual to how it must have looked in 1590, where the main storyline is. The clothing style was accurate and there were a great many nods to our history. However, even though some of it remained factual, or close to, there was no denying that there was whole lot of fiction intertwined to help create the illusion that witches, vampires, and daemons exist. Harkness has a way with her facts and her words to create such a wonderful woven story to have the facts and the fictions mix that you could practically believe that it could all be true and we just would never know about it. I am again truly amazed by the story and how it seems to flow from the first book to the second book so flawlessly. I am hardly able to express such enthusiasm I have for Harkness and her wonderful tale. Once again, she was able to submerge me into a tale that caused emotions to wax and wane in my soul.
With all the tears, joys, and laughs this book was able to get out of me, I thought the ending felt a tad bit rushed, and though I am grateful for the speed of the final chapters and how it sort of answered more questions while leaving the conclusions of the trilogy still to come, I feel I would have liked a bit more out of the characters in their reunions. With new characters being introduces slightly at the end, it left a lot of questions on what was going on. I understand that the last book in this trilogy would be what wrapped everything up, but I can’t help but feeling a little more should have been included about some of the characters that had been introduced. I will hold my breath on this matter though and wait to see how the trilogy ends.
I did find that Harkness was able to pin point things normal couples seem to be troubled with, such as jealousy and secrets, never mind should that couple have secret abilities or be of another entire species. I was overjoyed to see that even fictional characters could do something I see normal people due in reality without all the melodramatics that most romance novels and romantic comedies would have us believe. To watch the main characters have the differences, stand their ground, and even argue about things like secrets, other people, and insecurities makes it feel more at home. Not every romance should be almost perfect with a few flaws; Couples fight and through the power of love, the stay together. Even though they have chance to fall apart, it never ceases to amaze how simple communication, even between a d vampire and a witch, can make troubles and misunderstandings cease to exist. Even with the couple at ends at times, and the world seemingly against them, it was fun to watch them explore the world and themselves, if not to just become themselves more and learn how powerful love and trust could be.
I believe this book is 3 stars out of 4 stars for it rating. It is truly an amazing book and has the potential to stand alone, it is clear that without certain prior knowledges, a reader could get lost at the end of what is happening. Shadow of Night is as beautifully written as was A Discovery of Witches and I definitely would recommend it, if the person was will to start at the beginning with A Discovery of Witches. Luckily both can be bought on Amazon and in other places that sell books.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal ‘invasion’ of British film and television programming. Like the British ‘music invasion’ some 60 years ago we just can’t seem to get enough of it. Today’s film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy ‘The Lady In The Van’. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, ‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
That fateful night in Haddonfield, Laurie Strode shot and killed Michael Myers or so she thought. As the ambulance that pulled what was thought to be the corpse of the world's most notorious serial killer, Michael Myers made sure everyone knew he was still alive the best way he could; by slaughtering whoever got in his way. Now, two years later, Laurie lives with Sheriff Brackett and his daughter Annie. Laurie struggles with hallucinations and panic attacks while believing the therapy she's receiving is only making her worse. As Laurie struggles with her newfound issues, Michael tries to reunite his family. Michael has visions of his mother with a white horse accompanied by his younger self. Michael is returning to Haddonfield to finish the job.
This film has to set the record for dream sequences, which makes you wonder if the entire film is nothing more than a dream. I wasn't exactly a big fan of the remake from 2007 and expectations for this film were incredibly low, nobody can really be prepared for how terrible this film really is. Since there's so much wrong with this film, we'll try and start with what was actually was enjoyable.
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett is really the highlight of the film as far as acting goes. While that probably isn't saying much and his role isn't as big as you may expect, he does a good job with the screen time he gets. His character is intense right from the start, but as things take a turn for the worse for his character his downward spiral is the most enthralling aspect of the film. A few of the deaths were also really satisfying. Mainly Buddy the Secuirty Guard. There's a night scene where an officer is out on Sheriff Brackett's lawn and we're looking at the silhouette of a tree while the officer searches the premises. Before you know it, we see Michael emerge from that tree silhouette and kill the officer.
Everything else in the film was just horrendous. The flaws are almost so overwhelming that it's nearly impossible to know where to begin. The whole white horse thing is ridiculous. So if Deborah Myers tells young Michael that he can think of her whenever he looks at the white horse figurine she gave him, wouldn't that make her a horse by default? The inconsistencies in the film are incredibly glaring, as well. Laurie and Annie's injuries from the previous film seem more severe at the start of this one, Laurie being able to put weight on an injured leg by walking on it but it causing her extreme pain when she's lifted from a stretcher to a bed at the hospital, Michael chopping off a guy's head with a shard of glass, etc. The "Nights in White Satin" thing was literally beaten into your skull by the time the film ended. If you sit through the film, it's like Rob is sitting next to you each time the song comes on nudging you with his elbow going, "Eh? Do you get it? You get it?"
Michael was way too vocal for my liking. Heavy breathing is one thing, but when we're hearing him grunt loudly every time he stabs somebody then it takes a lot of it. When he actually talked at the end of the film, I was done. He also seemed to spend more time stabbing women than men in the film. Guys get their head chopped off or an axe to the back while women get stabbed a dozen times or have their face smashed against a mirror nine times. The choreography didn't seem as good as the remake either. There's a scene where water gets on the camera and it's on there the entire scene. It's interesting at first, but after a few minutes you just want someone to get a towel to wipe it down.
As powerful as Michael seems to be, it at least made a bit more sense in the original film by John Carpenter. Michael was pure evil. That was the explanation, so him not being able to die at least sort of made sense. Now that he's been given this white trash upbringing in the remake, his super strength and inability to die just seems even more farfetched than it originally did. So when Michael is busting through walls and lifting cars with his bare hands all Incredible Hulk style in this film, it's laughable. Not to mention what happened to the Dr. Loomis character. There are just way too many things wrong with this sequel to list here.
Rob Zombie has certainly made Halloween his own with Halloween II. It's just a shame that it's really not worth watching seriously. Let's put it this way, the highlight of the film is Weird Al's cameo. After five films of dealing with white trash families, it's time for Zombie to move on to something different. It's safe to say he's bled that idea bone dry. I wouldn't seriously recommend this film to anyone, but if you're looking for a film to watch with some friends to laugh at and make fun of while it's going then this is the perfect film.
This film has to set the record for dream sequences, which makes you wonder if the entire film is nothing more than a dream. I wasn't exactly a big fan of the remake from 2007 and expectations for this film were incredibly low, nobody can really be prepared for how terrible this film really is. Since there's so much wrong with this film, we'll try and start with what was actually was enjoyable.
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett is really the highlight of the film as far as acting goes. While that probably isn't saying much and his role isn't as big as you may expect, he does a good job with the screen time he gets. His character is intense right from the start, but as things take a turn for the worse for his character his downward spiral is the most enthralling aspect of the film. A few of the deaths were also really satisfying. Mainly Buddy the Secuirty Guard. There's a night scene where an officer is out on Sheriff Brackett's lawn and we're looking at the silhouette of a tree while the officer searches the premises. Before you know it, we see Michael emerge from that tree silhouette and kill the officer.
Everything else in the film was just horrendous. The flaws are almost so overwhelming that it's nearly impossible to know where to begin. The whole white horse thing is ridiculous. So if Deborah Myers tells young Michael that he can think of her whenever he looks at the white horse figurine she gave him, wouldn't that make her a horse by default? The inconsistencies in the film are incredibly glaring, as well. Laurie and Annie's injuries from the previous film seem more severe at the start of this one, Laurie being able to put weight on an injured leg by walking on it but it causing her extreme pain when she's lifted from a stretcher to a bed at the hospital, Michael chopping off a guy's head with a shard of glass, etc. The "Nights in White Satin" thing was literally beaten into your skull by the time the film ended. If you sit through the film, it's like Rob is sitting next to you each time the song comes on nudging you with his elbow going, "Eh? Do you get it? You get it?"
Michael was way too vocal for my liking. Heavy breathing is one thing, but when we're hearing him grunt loudly every time he stabs somebody then it takes a lot of it. When he actually talked at the end of the film, I was done. He also seemed to spend more time stabbing women than men in the film. Guys get their head chopped off or an axe to the back while women get stabbed a dozen times or have their face smashed against a mirror nine times. The choreography didn't seem as good as the remake either. There's a scene where water gets on the camera and it's on there the entire scene. It's interesting at first, but after a few minutes you just want someone to get a towel to wipe it down.
As powerful as Michael seems to be, it at least made a bit more sense in the original film by John Carpenter. Michael was pure evil. That was the explanation, so him not being able to die at least sort of made sense. Now that he's been given this white trash upbringing in the remake, his super strength and inability to die just seems even more farfetched than it originally did. So when Michael is busting through walls and lifting cars with his bare hands all Incredible Hulk style in this film, it's laughable. Not to mention what happened to the Dr. Loomis character. There are just way too many things wrong with this sequel to list here.
Rob Zombie has certainly made Halloween his own with Halloween II. It's just a shame that it's really not worth watching seriously. Let's put it this way, the highlight of the film is Weird Al's cameo. After five films of dealing with white trash families, it's time for Zombie to move on to something different. It's safe to say he's bled that idea bone dry. I wouldn't seriously recommend this film to anyone, but if you're looking for a film to watch with some friends to laugh at and make fun of while it's going then this is the perfect film.
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated A Discovery of Witches in Books
May 23, 2019
A Discovery of Witches by Deborah Harkness is the first book in the All Souls Trilogy. It introduces a witch and her vampire lover and the fight they must endure to be together against all odds. As the first book of the series, it really draws you in and makes you really think about how things are perceived and creates the illusion that vampires, witches and daemons (daemons are demons in Harkness’s fantastical world) could be hiding amongst us without us ever knowing. The book is placed in modern times, but brings in tons of history as the main character; a witch named Diana, is a historian and often is immersed in one history topic or another. It is quite interesting to read about her approach to life and see how it changes when she meets a vampire who whisks her away, so to speak. As a reader, you are able to delve into a world where anything is possible and see how just similar things would be if this was truly our world.
A Discovery of Witches is a book about a witch names Diana has encountered a very old and lost manuscript that many others want. Upon being granted access to this book and denying the magic in her that calls her to investigate it with her powers, she returns it, only to find herself being threatened, stalked and in danger due to it only being obtained by her and returned to the library and back to its magical disappearance. The finding of this book however, helps he discover who she is and a new lover, who is a vampire. The odd couple experience a threat and a mystery that they wish to uncover. As well as, an old rule that they now must try to change, no matter the cost
I had really enjoyed reading the first book, and found its quick pace refreshing but also pleasing to read. Though there were many things left for me to wonder about. All the secrets the vampire had and his worries that will be revealed in the second book, I hope anyways, makes me want to just read all the books back to back. Though the book was 576 pages long, I was able to finish reading it in two days. I often didn’t want to tear myself out of the book to do my daily tasks. It’s definitely a page turned with how Harkness was able to describe everything in the book and flush out some character while leaving mystery on what is to come in the next book.
Harkness was able to draw in each of the five senses into her writing. I was able to smell, taste, and feel what was being describe it was easy to get lost and forget easily all that was around me. However, I did find that somethings where a bit odd and would never have paired up, like the smell of cinnamon and cloves. I will have to try to make the combination in my kitchen to see what that might smell like together as I am not one for the smell of cinnamon. I did find the characters to be extremely well put together and often found myself happy when they were happy, as well as sad when they were. I did quite enjoy that A Discovery of Witches has some things that were extremely accurate while still being fantastical. For example, in Wicca or Paganism rituals are done to do witch craft. Spells and such are handed down to members of the family for generations and the holidays match up to what is practiced today. However, the way magic is portrayed isn’t what really happens in our world, or so I know of, but if it was, I can see how Harkness describes it being how it is.
A Discovery of Witches is just an amazing piece of work that will draw you in and keep you wanting more. Though some words can come across odd, as they aren’t used in normal, everyday conversations, it really says a lot about Harkness’s writing style. She is intelligent and it shows in her work with how she describes things and often uses things from our past to put things in our present world in to perspective to pertain to her characters.
I loved how the book has made me think and do some research myself, on different topics, if only to see what was true and what was made up. For example, alchemy is what puts our character in a situation that seems harsh and completely uncalled for by some extremely bad characters. Not knowing much about alchemy, I had to look up just what the photos Diana might be looking at. The author described them so well, I would picture them in my mind and when I looked them up; I was amazed how much close to the actual images Harkness had described. Though, I am on a computer versus in a library with old manuscripts.
Overall, I would rate this book 3 star out of 4 stars. That may seem harsh seeing as it is one of the best books I have read, and I read a ton, but I found that with all the secrets the characters keep from each other and the reader as a whole quite infuriating. I wanted more and find myself here not able to resist the urge of starting the next book. I do hope some things are clarified and revealed; otherwise I will end up being a very upset reader. Harkness’s writing does seem promising to reveal more as the story develops though. A Discovery of Witches is an extremely good book, even with its infuriating secrets, that I would recommend to anyone who loves the ideas of vampires, witches and demons existing in a world alongside us.
A Discovery of Witches is a book about a witch names Diana has encountered a very old and lost manuscript that many others want. Upon being granted access to this book and denying the magic in her that calls her to investigate it with her powers, she returns it, only to find herself being threatened, stalked and in danger due to it only being obtained by her and returned to the library and back to its magical disappearance. The finding of this book however, helps he discover who she is and a new lover, who is a vampire. The odd couple experience a threat and a mystery that they wish to uncover. As well as, an old rule that they now must try to change, no matter the cost
I had really enjoyed reading the first book, and found its quick pace refreshing but also pleasing to read. Though there were many things left for me to wonder about. All the secrets the vampire had and his worries that will be revealed in the second book, I hope anyways, makes me want to just read all the books back to back. Though the book was 576 pages long, I was able to finish reading it in two days. I often didn’t want to tear myself out of the book to do my daily tasks. It’s definitely a page turned with how Harkness was able to describe everything in the book and flush out some character while leaving mystery on what is to come in the next book.
Harkness was able to draw in each of the five senses into her writing. I was able to smell, taste, and feel what was being describe it was easy to get lost and forget easily all that was around me. However, I did find that somethings where a bit odd and would never have paired up, like the smell of cinnamon and cloves. I will have to try to make the combination in my kitchen to see what that might smell like together as I am not one for the smell of cinnamon. I did find the characters to be extremely well put together and often found myself happy when they were happy, as well as sad when they were. I did quite enjoy that A Discovery of Witches has some things that were extremely accurate while still being fantastical. For example, in Wicca or Paganism rituals are done to do witch craft. Spells and such are handed down to members of the family for generations and the holidays match up to what is practiced today. However, the way magic is portrayed isn’t what really happens in our world, or so I know of, but if it was, I can see how Harkness describes it being how it is.
A Discovery of Witches is just an amazing piece of work that will draw you in and keep you wanting more. Though some words can come across odd, as they aren’t used in normal, everyday conversations, it really says a lot about Harkness’s writing style. She is intelligent and it shows in her work with how she describes things and often uses things from our past to put things in our present world in to perspective to pertain to her characters.
I loved how the book has made me think and do some research myself, on different topics, if only to see what was true and what was made up. For example, alchemy is what puts our character in a situation that seems harsh and completely uncalled for by some extremely bad characters. Not knowing much about alchemy, I had to look up just what the photos Diana might be looking at. The author described them so well, I would picture them in my mind and when I looked them up; I was amazed how much close to the actual images Harkness had described. Though, I am on a computer versus in a library with old manuscripts.
Overall, I would rate this book 3 star out of 4 stars. That may seem harsh seeing as it is one of the best books I have read, and I read a ton, but I found that with all the secrets the characters keep from each other and the reader as a whole quite infuriating. I wanted more and find myself here not able to resist the urge of starting the next book. I do hope some things are clarified and revealed; otherwise I will end up being a very upset reader. Harkness’s writing does seem promising to reveal more as the story develops though. A Discovery of Witches is an extremely good book, even with its infuriating secrets, that I would recommend to anyone who loves the ideas of vampires, witches and demons existing in a world alongside us.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.