Search
Search results
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Haunted in Books
Jun 23, 2019
A lot of inconsistencies (1 more)
Stereo-typical characters
A murder begins the story of 'The Haunted,' where Vega starts with every parent's nightmare:
a little girl named Maribeth is killed in the cellar of the Steele House by an unseen force. We jump to three years later, where our main character, Hendricks, is moving into this house with her parents and baby brother- - - a family that is unaware of the murder that took place in the cellar. Vega does a wonderful job of steering the paranormal aspects away from the usual ones that most readers are used to. But although the story is good, the writing is poorly executed.
Starting with the teenaged girl Hendricks, she tells us that she refuses to be a stereo-type, but her first thoughts on the ride to school are of her ex-boyfriend, Grayson. But this is a young adult book, so a young girl obsessing over her ex is to be expected. Yet, when Hendricks gets to her new high school, she quickly begins to stereo-type everyone she meets by what they are wearing. Unfortunately, every character in this story, including Hendricks parents, are stereo-types. Eddie, who wears nothing but black clothing, is the outcast; Portia, who wears too short of skirts and too tight of shirts, is the makeup obsessed girly-girl; Raven, who tries to be funny, is the sporty best friend, and, Connor, who seems to be the only character that Vega tried to keep away from his stereo-type, is a friendly jock who loves his large family.
Readers learn early on that Hendricks' break-up with her ex, Grayson, was a traumatic event for her- - - as Hendricks releases more and more memories, it's soon easy to see that the relationship was an emotional abusive one; from Grayson telling her how to dress to him influencing the way she acted around other people, including who she was allowed to be around. In the middle of all this, Hendricks begins to learn the history of the Steele House, and we find out that Maribeth may not have been the only one murdered there. When Hendricks isn't trying to drink alcohol in almost every chapter, she begins experiencing strange things in the house, including one very similar to Maribeth's experience, but sadly, the paranormal aspect is the only good part of this book.
'The Haunted' could have been a great story, but there are so many inconsistencies, some even on the very next page. Such as, on page 44, Hendricks sees a singing doll waking up her baby brother inside his room (Vega literally states 'in the middle of his room'), but the very next page, Hendricks is suddenly scooping up the doll outside of her brother's room to put it away. On page 157, Hendricks is being pinned against a wall in the cellar by an unseen force, one of her arms is against her back, but suddenly she is able to use both hands to push off the wall, but it was never stated that her arm became unpinned.
One of Vega's biggest mistakes in 'The Haunted' was using the same handful of descriptions for emotions with every single character throughout the entire book. Such as, if a character was trying to make a decision, they always bit their lip; if a character was confused, they always furrowed their brow; if a character was embarrassed, they always had a reddening face. Vega never took advantage of other body language to convey these emotions, causing the story to come up short.
As I have said, the only good part of this book was the paranormal aspect, and the ghosts happen to be the only interesting characters. If I had to choose my favorite part of this story, I would have to choose when Eddie and Hendricks bring in the occult store owner, Ileana. Following this chapter, the best part of the paranormal aspects happen, but I don't want to spoil that for anyone who may want to read this. Vega is crafty in keeping up the suspense throughout this entire time, this is apparently where her strength in writing occurs. She amazingly describes scenes where readers can easily imagine them happening in reality. Her take on hauntings is one that is rarely seen and I think should be utilized in paranormal fiction more often.
'The Haunting' just didn't add up for me. It seems the story was written too hastily that beginning writer mistakes were made and overlooked, but most young adult readers may be able to look past this. Like Stephen King, Vega has great story-telling power in the horror genre, but in 'The Haunting,' I don't feel she was fully able to display this because the focus on Hendricks' life drama took over most of it. If I were to recommend this to anyone, I would only recommend it to people who like teenaged drama mixed in with a ghost story.
a little girl named Maribeth is killed in the cellar of the Steele House by an unseen force. We jump to three years later, where our main character, Hendricks, is moving into this house with her parents and baby brother- - - a family that is unaware of the murder that took place in the cellar. Vega does a wonderful job of steering the paranormal aspects away from the usual ones that most readers are used to. But although the story is good, the writing is poorly executed.
Starting with the teenaged girl Hendricks, she tells us that she refuses to be a stereo-type, but her first thoughts on the ride to school are of her ex-boyfriend, Grayson. But this is a young adult book, so a young girl obsessing over her ex is to be expected. Yet, when Hendricks gets to her new high school, she quickly begins to stereo-type everyone she meets by what they are wearing. Unfortunately, every character in this story, including Hendricks parents, are stereo-types. Eddie, who wears nothing but black clothing, is the outcast; Portia, who wears too short of skirts and too tight of shirts, is the makeup obsessed girly-girl; Raven, who tries to be funny, is the sporty best friend, and, Connor, who seems to be the only character that Vega tried to keep away from his stereo-type, is a friendly jock who loves his large family.
Readers learn early on that Hendricks' break-up with her ex, Grayson, was a traumatic event for her- - - as Hendricks releases more and more memories, it's soon easy to see that the relationship was an emotional abusive one; from Grayson telling her how to dress to him influencing the way she acted around other people, including who she was allowed to be around. In the middle of all this, Hendricks begins to learn the history of the Steele House, and we find out that Maribeth may not have been the only one murdered there. When Hendricks isn't trying to drink alcohol in almost every chapter, she begins experiencing strange things in the house, including one very similar to Maribeth's experience, but sadly, the paranormal aspect is the only good part of this book.
'The Haunted' could have been a great story, but there are so many inconsistencies, some even on the very next page. Such as, on page 44, Hendricks sees a singing doll waking up her baby brother inside his room (Vega literally states 'in the middle of his room'), but the very next page, Hendricks is suddenly scooping up the doll outside of her brother's room to put it away. On page 157, Hendricks is being pinned against a wall in the cellar by an unseen force, one of her arms is against her back, but suddenly she is able to use both hands to push off the wall, but it was never stated that her arm became unpinned.
One of Vega's biggest mistakes in 'The Haunted' was using the same handful of descriptions for emotions with every single character throughout the entire book. Such as, if a character was trying to make a decision, they always bit their lip; if a character was confused, they always furrowed their brow; if a character was embarrassed, they always had a reddening face. Vega never took advantage of other body language to convey these emotions, causing the story to come up short.
As I have said, the only good part of this book was the paranormal aspect, and the ghosts happen to be the only interesting characters. If I had to choose my favorite part of this story, I would have to choose when Eddie and Hendricks bring in the occult store owner, Ileana. Following this chapter, the best part of the paranormal aspects happen, but I don't want to spoil that for anyone who may want to read this. Vega is crafty in keeping up the suspense throughout this entire time, this is apparently where her strength in writing occurs. She amazingly describes scenes where readers can easily imagine them happening in reality. Her take on hauntings is one that is rarely seen and I think should be utilized in paranormal fiction more often.
'The Haunting' just didn't add up for me. It seems the story was written too hastily that beginning writer mistakes were made and overlooked, but most young adult readers may be able to look past this. Like Stephen King, Vega has great story-telling power in the horror genre, but in 'The Haunting,' I don't feel she was fully able to display this because the focus on Hendricks' life drama took over most of it. If I were to recommend this to anyone, I would only recommend it to people who like teenaged drama mixed in with a ghost story.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
My mom took me to see the new It – and it was great. It does have a few changes that are worth noting though – and I’m curious as to how they will play out in the next part. Presently, the film only covers the part that takes place in 1957-1958 (though in the movie, it’s 1988), which leaves things open for another film.
First, I want to say that I have a thing for Bill Skarsgård. I have since I watched Hemlock Grove, where he plays an upir. So finding out that he would be playing Pennywise somehow dispelled my fear of clowns (which actually formed when I was eight and watched the It miniseries – or at least, the first bit of it). Skarsgård performance is spectacular and I have no complaints regarding his acting.
For the most part, It follows a line between the miniseries and the book. When it comes to a tome the size of It, obviously things have need cutting out. To expect more would likely have mean an entire series (not that I’d complain). There are a few things that really bugged me though. First, Richie does not do his voices in It. This is a major character trait that I feel should have been included – especially since he uses his voice imitations in the book to get past Pennywise. To leave out one of Richie’s defining characteristics is disappointing, as I really wanted to see how it would play out.
Second, once again, what Stan sees differs from the book. Those that have read It know that Stan ends up trapped in a standpipe. Here, a corpse comes at him and in order to escape, he recites the names of birds from a book he keeps in his pocket. This causes the door to open and thus Stan Uris lives. His obsession with birds, like Richie’s voice imitations, is another defining characteristic of the boys that is left out.
Because the movie is pressed for time, it’s easier to understand why other elements are left out – such as the real reason behind Eddie Corcoran’s death (which is left simply at “missing” in the film). In fact, several of the disappearance are touched upon just enough to remind viewers how threatening Pennywise is – and that’s perfect for this film.
Overall, I really enjoyed It. I feel that leaving out those two defining characteristics of Richie and Stan was unnecessary. Despite that, It comes in as one of my favorite film so far this year and I might have to bug Mom to get it for me on DVD.
First, I want to say that I have a thing for Bill Skarsgård. I have since I watched Hemlock Grove, where he plays an upir. So finding out that he would be playing Pennywise somehow dispelled my fear of clowns (which actually formed when I was eight and watched the It miniseries – or at least, the first bit of it). Skarsgård performance is spectacular and I have no complaints regarding his acting.
For the most part, It follows a line between the miniseries and the book. When it comes to a tome the size of It, obviously things have need cutting out. To expect more would likely have mean an entire series (not that I’d complain). There are a few things that really bugged me though. First, Richie does not do his voices in It. This is a major character trait that I feel should have been included – especially since he uses his voice imitations in the book to get past Pennywise. To leave out one of Richie’s defining characteristics is disappointing, as I really wanted to see how it would play out.
Second, once again, what Stan sees differs from the book. Those that have read It know that Stan ends up trapped in a standpipe. Here, a corpse comes at him and in order to escape, he recites the names of birds from a book he keeps in his pocket. This causes the door to open and thus Stan Uris lives. His obsession with birds, like Richie’s voice imitations, is another defining characteristic of the boys that is left out.
Because the movie is pressed for time, it’s easier to understand why other elements are left out – such as the real reason behind Eddie Corcoran’s death (which is left simply at “missing” in the film). In fact, several of the disappearance are touched upon just enough to remind viewers how threatening Pennywise is – and that’s perfect for this film.
Overall, I really enjoyed It. I feel that leaving out those two defining characteristics of Richie and Stan was unnecessary. Despite that, It comes in as one of my favorite film so far this year and I might have to bug Mom to get it for me on DVD.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Abominable (2019) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Abominable is a new animated film that is co-produced between Dreamworks Studio and Pearl studio (out of China).
The main character is called Yi, voiced by Chloe Bennett.
Yi is a bit lost, and sad due to the death of her father. We are introduced to her in the film working working working and barely slowing down enough to eat, and never spending and family time with her mother (voiced by Michelle Wong) and grandmother (Tsai Chin).
I could tell there was more to Yi’s reluctance to spend time with her family than just ‘work’, and the movie, from an adult perspective, showed that Yi didn’t feel like she really HAD a family anymore, because of the loss of her dad.
We find out that she is working so hard to earn money to travel to all the spots she was supposed to travel with her father to.
Discovering a Yeti on the roof of her apartment building puts a monkey wrench in her plans, however.
Yi discovers that the Yeti needs to find his way home to HIS family, and that his home is Mount Everest. She promptly tags the Yeti with the name ‘Everest’.
Her best friend Peng (voiced by Albert Tsai) and Pengs cousin Jin (voiced by Tenzing Norgay Trainor – who is actually the grandson of Tenzing Norgay, one of the first men to reach the summit of Everest), get roped into the adventure.
The group must avoid being captured by a man intent on collecting novel and new animals, named Burnish (Eddie Izzard) and his assistant Dr. Zara (Sarah Paulson) who is not what she seems, who Everest had escaped from.
The movie moves along quickly and kept even my 3 year old who never-stops-moving pretty engaged for at least the first hour.
My 11 year old son was entranced the whole way through.
I thought that the animation was great, the visuals (scenery) that the movie existed in were phenomenally done and the music was perfectly arranged to go with the story line.
The story itself was sweet, and a bit sad, but did evolve well and showed the possibilities of moving beyond deep sadness and the healing power of music and friends and helping others as well.
It’s a great family film, and I would go see it again for sure.
I would actually give this movie 5 out of 5 stars as a kids / family movie.
It’s a must see!
The main character is called Yi, voiced by Chloe Bennett.
Yi is a bit lost, and sad due to the death of her father. We are introduced to her in the film working working working and barely slowing down enough to eat, and never spending and family time with her mother (voiced by Michelle Wong) and grandmother (Tsai Chin).
I could tell there was more to Yi’s reluctance to spend time with her family than just ‘work’, and the movie, from an adult perspective, showed that Yi didn’t feel like she really HAD a family anymore, because of the loss of her dad.
We find out that she is working so hard to earn money to travel to all the spots she was supposed to travel with her father to.
Discovering a Yeti on the roof of her apartment building puts a monkey wrench in her plans, however.
Yi discovers that the Yeti needs to find his way home to HIS family, and that his home is Mount Everest. She promptly tags the Yeti with the name ‘Everest’.
Her best friend Peng (voiced by Albert Tsai) and Pengs cousin Jin (voiced by Tenzing Norgay Trainor – who is actually the grandson of Tenzing Norgay, one of the first men to reach the summit of Everest), get roped into the adventure.
The group must avoid being captured by a man intent on collecting novel and new animals, named Burnish (Eddie Izzard) and his assistant Dr. Zara (Sarah Paulson) who is not what she seems, who Everest had escaped from.
The movie moves along quickly and kept even my 3 year old who never-stops-moving pretty engaged for at least the first hour.
My 11 year old son was entranced the whole way through.
I thought that the animation was great, the visuals (scenery) that the movie existed in were phenomenally done and the music was perfectly arranged to go with the story line.
The story itself was sweet, and a bit sad, but did evolve well and showed the possibilities of moving beyond deep sadness and the healing power of music and friends and helping others as well.
It’s a great family film, and I would go see it again for sure.
I would actually give this movie 5 out of 5 stars as a kids / family movie.
It’s a must see!
100% Biodegradable Comic Collection 1
8.0
Rate It
Book
The kind of wonderful craziness we've come to demand of the creators involved" - John Freeman, Titan...
Comic
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Breaking In (2018) (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Get In.
Into every life a little rain must fall. Some fairly pervasive advertising drove me into the cinema to see this one… often a sign that the distributors think it has legs. And from its quirky opening titles (with a COMPLETELY expected shock denouement!) I started to think it did have something. The beginning is in fact VERY similar to the introductory scene of “Get Out” in its randomness, and for one brief moment I wondered if the film was trying to parody that indie classic from last year… with only some studio lawyers getting in the way of them really calling it “Get In”. (“No, no, no… ‘Get’ is copyrighted… you’ll have to use some other word!”).
But no. It turns out that this is a pretty below-average B-movie after all,
The plot is pretty derivative of the “family in dire peril” variety made famous by the “Taken” series. Not being able to persuade Liam Neeson to wear a dress in this “Times Up” era, the Neeson-actioner writer Ryan Engle (“The Commuter“, “Non-Stop“) switches the action to focus on stressed mother Shaun Russell (Gabrielle Union).
Shaun has come to deepest Wisconsin with her two kids, Jasmine (Ajiona Alexus) and Glover (Seth Carr) to arrange the sale of her deceased father’s luxury home: a house absolutely brimming to the elegant rafters with security features. But unknown to them, there are already intruders in the house searching for something of value, and with Shaun locked outside the secure fortress home she will stop at nothing to break in and bring her children safely home.
The sad thing about this one is that the fairly unknown cast actually do a pretty good job. The chief villain Eddie, played by Billy Burke, channels an effectively ‘evil-quiet-Gary-Oldman” turn to good effect. His accomplices, the more sensitive Sam (Levi Meaden), luckless Peter (Mark Furze) and (particularly) the psychopathic Duncan (Richard Cabral) (can a psychopath really be called Duncan?) are broad caricatures, but never too broad to be totally awful.
Gabrielle Union kicks-ass effectively with her particular set of skills (see below), but particularly good is 22-year old Ajiona Alexus who has a great screen presence and deserves to be in much better films than this.
Where the film stumbles and goes crashing through its carbonite shutters is in the story and the screenplay’s dialogue.
The former is just bat-shit crazy, with so many ridiculous plot-holes and “yeah-but” moments that you lose count. For example, at one point the daughter is looking for her mobile phone WHICH IS IN THE ROOM and which would wrap the plot up in 10 minutes flat…. but then something else happens and they stop looking for it, never to be thought of again!
And what of those ‘particular set of skills’ that Shaun has? Oh, I forgot to say… she has none!! Or at least you assume not, since Shaun seems to have no back-story whatsoever, other than the fact that her daddy is very very rich and being investigated by the D/A. For what? Embezzlement? Tax evasion? Smartie-smuggling? Gun running? Perhaps he was a mafia overlord and Shaun was brought up with martial arts, gun and knife training to spy-school level? Perhaps none of the above, and she was just an obsessive watcher of Engle-scripted flicks? We will never know.
In addition, Shaun gets the proverbial crap kicked out of her on so many occasions, but there is no trip to casualty required. (Yes, I know Neeson and most other action heroes have the same implausible in-vulnerabilities, but it just seems so much less realistic when she is a not-particularly sporty or athletic woman).
And that dialogue… it’s just plain laughable in places. If Eddie doesn’t do his “Mamma hen will come back to save her chicks” speech once, he does it five times….
“Hey, James”… (James McTeigue, director, “V for Vendetta”)… says Burke, “Haven’t I said this line four times already”. “Sure”, says McTeigue, “I’m not sure where exactly I want to put it in the final cut yet, but only one of them will stay in. Don’t worry… I won’t make you look stupid to the cinema-going audience!!”
Every last thriller cliché is mined as the story grinds to an unmemorable and very flat conclusion.
Before wrapping up, I’d point out Another crime being committed in the music department. Australian composer Johnny Klimek’s action thriller score is actually quiet good, full of nice electronic riffs. But he really doesn’t know when to shut up. I remember an interview by John Williams on scoring the score to Hitchcock’s “Family Plot” where he recounted that Hitchcock taught him the value of a sudden absence of music at key moments. This film is too recent to learn the many lessons of “A Quiet Place“: but there are so many moments in this film where silence should have been golden. At one point the (what should be) heart-stopping sound effect of a creaking beam can barely be heard over Klimek’s pounding electronics.
So in summary, although it’s the award of ‘good acting attempt’ badges to sew onto the cast’s scout uniforms, my message to you dear reader re this one is “Get Out” of the cinema and enjoy the nice summer evenings instead!
But no. It turns out that this is a pretty below-average B-movie after all,
The plot is pretty derivative of the “family in dire peril” variety made famous by the “Taken” series. Not being able to persuade Liam Neeson to wear a dress in this “Times Up” era, the Neeson-actioner writer Ryan Engle (“The Commuter“, “Non-Stop“) switches the action to focus on stressed mother Shaun Russell (Gabrielle Union).
Shaun has come to deepest Wisconsin with her two kids, Jasmine (Ajiona Alexus) and Glover (Seth Carr) to arrange the sale of her deceased father’s luxury home: a house absolutely brimming to the elegant rafters with security features. But unknown to them, there are already intruders in the house searching for something of value, and with Shaun locked outside the secure fortress home she will stop at nothing to break in and bring her children safely home.
The sad thing about this one is that the fairly unknown cast actually do a pretty good job. The chief villain Eddie, played by Billy Burke, channels an effectively ‘evil-quiet-Gary-Oldman” turn to good effect. His accomplices, the more sensitive Sam (Levi Meaden), luckless Peter (Mark Furze) and (particularly) the psychopathic Duncan (Richard Cabral) (can a psychopath really be called Duncan?) are broad caricatures, but never too broad to be totally awful.
Gabrielle Union kicks-ass effectively with her particular set of skills (see below), but particularly good is 22-year old Ajiona Alexus who has a great screen presence and deserves to be in much better films than this.
Where the film stumbles and goes crashing through its carbonite shutters is in the story and the screenplay’s dialogue.
The former is just bat-shit crazy, with so many ridiculous plot-holes and “yeah-but” moments that you lose count. For example, at one point the daughter is looking for her mobile phone WHICH IS IN THE ROOM and which would wrap the plot up in 10 minutes flat…. but then something else happens and they stop looking for it, never to be thought of again!
And what of those ‘particular set of skills’ that Shaun has? Oh, I forgot to say… she has none!! Or at least you assume not, since Shaun seems to have no back-story whatsoever, other than the fact that her daddy is very very rich and being investigated by the D/A. For what? Embezzlement? Tax evasion? Smartie-smuggling? Gun running? Perhaps he was a mafia overlord and Shaun was brought up with martial arts, gun and knife training to spy-school level? Perhaps none of the above, and she was just an obsessive watcher of Engle-scripted flicks? We will never know.
In addition, Shaun gets the proverbial crap kicked out of her on so many occasions, but there is no trip to casualty required. (Yes, I know Neeson and most other action heroes have the same implausible in-vulnerabilities, but it just seems so much less realistic when she is a not-particularly sporty or athletic woman).
And that dialogue… it’s just plain laughable in places. If Eddie doesn’t do his “Mamma hen will come back to save her chicks” speech once, he does it five times….
“Hey, James”… (James McTeigue, director, “V for Vendetta”)… says Burke, “Haven’t I said this line four times already”. “Sure”, says McTeigue, “I’m not sure where exactly I want to put it in the final cut yet, but only one of them will stay in. Don’t worry… I won’t make you look stupid to the cinema-going audience!!”
Every last thriller cliché is mined as the story grinds to an unmemorable and very flat conclusion.
Before wrapping up, I’d point out Another crime being committed in the music department. Australian composer Johnny Klimek’s action thriller score is actually quiet good, full of nice electronic riffs. But he really doesn’t know when to shut up. I remember an interview by John Williams on scoring the score to Hitchcock’s “Family Plot” where he recounted that Hitchcock taught him the value of a sudden absence of music at key moments. This film is too recent to learn the many lessons of “A Quiet Place“: but there are so many moments in this film where silence should have been golden. At one point the (what should be) heart-stopping sound effect of a creaking beam can barely be heard over Klimek’s pounding electronics.
So in summary, although it’s the award of ‘good acting attempt’ badges to sew onto the cast’s scout uniforms, my message to you dear reader re this one is “Get Out” of the cinema and enjoy the nice summer evenings instead!
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Chalk Man in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Big thanks to Janel @ Keeper of Pages for sending me her copy of the book!
This is one of those books that’s been getting a lot of attention in the bookish world, so of course, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about! While it only took me a couple of sessions to get through the whole thing, I wasn’t that thrilled by it. The hype wasn’t worth it for me.
I immediately knew this novel wasn’t going to be a 5 star read because I didn’t like the way it was written from page 1. It’s one of those novels that’s told in flashbacks, but rather than transporting us back in time to live the events as they happened, we were told it as though we were being read a story. I feel like this way of writing really makes you take a step back from the events and you don’t get the chance to experience them along with the characters. So anything that’s meant to be tense or exciting didn’t feel that way for me.
As for characters, I honestly didn’t have an opinion on any of them. You would have thought that our main character / narrator Eddie would have left some kind of impression on me, but he didn’t. I genuinely have nothing to say about him… he was unforgettable. The only thing I can think to mention is that his relationship with his housemate Chloe seriously cringy.
<spoiler>For me, there were too many characters in this book that were irrelevant. Including Mr. Halloran – “The Chalk Man”. He was literally only a character to make the title make sense and to have an extremely obvious ‘distraction’ to the real bad guy.</spoiler>
I didn’t mind the story in this one, but the synopsis had me ready for something so much more exciting and sinister. It kept me interested for the most part, but I wasn’t enthralled. I had the ‘baddie’ sussed in a matter of chapters, so from there, all I was trying to work out was their motive. It was pretty good at keeping you on your toes in that sense.
Some books try so hard to be exciting and this is one of them. It seemed to me, that each chapter had new drama in it. Less is sometimes more! Don’t forget that! We don’t need drama, after drama, after drama to keep us entertained. It got tedious and took any realism away from the story.
In the end, this novel was extremely underwhelming for me. I didn’t find it exciting and I didn’t think the story was particularly unique. I think this would be a good novel for non-mystery readers, but I’ve just read too many similar stories.
This is one of those books that’s been getting a lot of attention in the bookish world, so of course, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about! While it only took me a couple of sessions to get through the whole thing, I wasn’t that thrilled by it. The hype wasn’t worth it for me.
I immediately knew this novel wasn’t going to be a 5 star read because I didn’t like the way it was written from page 1. It’s one of those novels that’s told in flashbacks, but rather than transporting us back in time to live the events as they happened, we were told it as though we were being read a story. I feel like this way of writing really makes you take a step back from the events and you don’t get the chance to experience them along with the characters. So anything that’s meant to be tense or exciting didn’t feel that way for me.
As for characters, I honestly didn’t have an opinion on any of them. You would have thought that our main character / narrator Eddie would have left some kind of impression on me, but he didn’t. I genuinely have nothing to say about him… he was unforgettable. The only thing I can think to mention is that his relationship with his housemate Chloe seriously cringy.
<spoiler>For me, there were too many characters in this book that were irrelevant. Including Mr. Halloran – “The Chalk Man”. He was literally only a character to make the title make sense and to have an extremely obvious ‘distraction’ to the real bad guy.</spoiler>
I didn’t mind the story in this one, but the synopsis had me ready for something so much more exciting and sinister. It kept me interested for the most part, but I wasn’t enthralled. I had the ‘baddie’ sussed in a matter of chapters, so from there, all I was trying to work out was their motive. It was pretty good at keeping you on your toes in that sense.
Some books try so hard to be exciting and this is one of them. It seemed to me, that each chapter had new drama in it. Less is sometimes more! Don’t forget that! We don’t need drama, after drama, after drama to keep us entertained. It got tedious and took any realism away from the story.
In the end, this novel was extremely underwhelming for me. I didn’t find it exciting and I didn’t think the story was particularly unique. I think this would be a good novel for non-mystery readers, but I’ve just read too many similar stories.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 22, 2018
Dull, boring & confused
I'll start by saying I've never been enamoured with the idea of the Fantastic Beasts films. For me, the wizarding world should have been left alone. The first film was enjoyable to a point (mainly because of Eddie Redmayne and the niffler), but this second film is inexcusable. And the fact that they're making another 3 more... totally unnecessary.
This film doesn't get off to a good start with the opening sequence, and rarely gets any better throughout the entire 2+ hour runtime. Some of the camera angles and shots used are terrible, jumping around all over the place even when it's just dialogue and the action scenes are virtually unwatchable. Whilst the effects are good, the plot is convoluted, confusing and just plain old boring. The majority of the film is just dialogue, and not well scripted dialogue at that and it gets very dull very quickly.
The characters that were likeable in the first film were either poorly used or turned into something completely different to what was likeable about them in the first place. There are far too many characters in this and even with the far too long run time, there isn't much time for character development. Johnny Depp is horrendous as Grindelwald. Not only because the character himself is the least menacing villain you've ever seen, but he's just not a very good actor anymore. I actually think his original incarnation as Colin Farrell in the first film would've been much better. I also couldn't figure out what crimes he had committed until the final act. The only person to come out of this film fairly intact was Jude Law, who played a likeable Dumbledore even if he wasn't on screen nearly enough. And really, it was only the creatures that made this worth watching and there just wasn't enough of them. Definitely not enough Niffler antics!
My main issue with this film is that it's messing with canon, bringing in characters we don't want to see and telling a story we don't need to hear. We didn't need to see Hogwarts, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Nagini and a few others I won't name. It's turning the wizarding world into a convoluted mess. They could have made a fairly decent standalone first Fantastic Beasts film that didn't link in with Grindelwald or the history at all, but instead they've made this nonsense.
And if I didn't think it could get any worse, the reveal of Credence's real identity right at the end nearly had me shouting at the screen it was that bad and ridiculous.
I probably could have walked out of this film after half an hour and not been bothered. Terrible.
This film doesn't get off to a good start with the opening sequence, and rarely gets any better throughout the entire 2+ hour runtime. Some of the camera angles and shots used are terrible, jumping around all over the place even when it's just dialogue and the action scenes are virtually unwatchable. Whilst the effects are good, the plot is convoluted, confusing and just plain old boring. The majority of the film is just dialogue, and not well scripted dialogue at that and it gets very dull very quickly.
The characters that were likeable in the first film were either poorly used or turned into something completely different to what was likeable about them in the first place. There are far too many characters in this and even with the far too long run time, there isn't much time for character development. Johnny Depp is horrendous as Grindelwald. Not only because the character himself is the least menacing villain you've ever seen, but he's just not a very good actor anymore. I actually think his original incarnation as Colin Farrell in the first film would've been much better. I also couldn't figure out what crimes he had committed until the final act. The only person to come out of this film fairly intact was Jude Law, who played a likeable Dumbledore even if he wasn't on screen nearly enough. And really, it was only the creatures that made this worth watching and there just wasn't enough of them. Definitely not enough Niffler antics!
My main issue with this film is that it's messing with canon, bringing in characters we don't want to see and telling a story we don't need to hear. We didn't need to see Hogwarts, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Nagini and a few others I won't name. It's turning the wizarding world into a convoluted mess. They could have made a fairly decent standalone first Fantastic Beasts film that didn't link in with Grindelwald or the history at all, but instead they've made this nonsense.
And if I didn't think it could get any worse, the reveal of Credence's real identity right at the end nearly had me shouting at the screen it was that bad and ridiculous.
I probably could have walked out of this film after half an hour and not been bothered. Terrible.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Harlem Nights (1989) in Movies
Feb 1, 2020
A Movie Packed With Entertainment
Harlem Nights getting a 21% on Rotten Tomatoes really leaves me scratching my head. Apparently I’m not the only one as the Audience Score is an overwhelming 80%. Critics (and I include myself in this) don’t always get it right and this is definitely one of those instances. The Story: Two black clubowners in 1930’s Harlem have to outsmart gangsters and corrupt police officers when they try to muscle in on their business.
Acting: 10
Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor are comedic legends and they work so well together in this movie. Murphy plays Quick, a flashy hot-head who carries scenes with sheer charm. Pryor’s role as Sugar Ray sees him take more of a fatherly approach. His voice of reason provides a sweet balance to all the chaos going on. Outside of these two, the supporting cast is filled with amazing performances from the likes of actors like Redd Foxx and Della Reese.
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes are not only hilarious but get you quickly involved in the story. We get to see how Quick and Sugar Ray meet and the crazy circumstance that brought them together. Great setup that perfectly tees up the rest of the movie.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 7
While I can’t put it in the category of All-Time Great, it’s still damn good. It’s the kind of movie with serious replay value. It gives you something to cheer for and plenty of things to laugh about.
Memorability: 8
One of my favorite all-time scenes for film happens in this movie when Quick faces off against Della Reese’s character Vera in an alley. All hell breaks loose when a big toe gets shot. It’s moments like this that adds a magic to this movie you just can’t get anywhere else. It reminds me why I love movies.
Pace: 10
Plot: 7
The story has some holes and relies on a couple of shortcuts to get through, but nothing too damning to impact the overall solidity of the movie. For the most part it works. I appreciated its originality, specifically with putting black characters in such a prominent position during that time period. Nice touch.
Resolution: 7
Not a perfect wrapping of the story, but feels complete nonetheless. I was definitely satisfied. A little bit more closure and I probably would have scored higher.
Overall: 86
If I’m being honest, I think critics sometimes suffer with trying to fit in. Desperately seeking approval from their peers, they produce like reviews that are not a fair indication of a movie’s actual quality.Damn the critics, Harlem Nights is an awesome movie and, if you haven’t checked it out, give it a shot!
Acting: 10
Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor are comedic legends and they work so well together in this movie. Murphy plays Quick, a flashy hot-head who carries scenes with sheer charm. Pryor’s role as Sugar Ray sees him take more of a fatherly approach. His voice of reason provides a sweet balance to all the chaos going on. Outside of these two, the supporting cast is filled with amazing performances from the likes of actors like Redd Foxx and Della Reese.
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes are not only hilarious but get you quickly involved in the story. We get to see how Quick and Sugar Ray meet and the crazy circumstance that brought them together. Great setup that perfectly tees up the rest of the movie.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 7
While I can’t put it in the category of All-Time Great, it’s still damn good. It’s the kind of movie with serious replay value. It gives you something to cheer for and plenty of things to laugh about.
Memorability: 8
One of my favorite all-time scenes for film happens in this movie when Quick faces off against Della Reese’s character Vera in an alley. All hell breaks loose when a big toe gets shot. It’s moments like this that adds a magic to this movie you just can’t get anywhere else. It reminds me why I love movies.
Pace: 10
Plot: 7
The story has some holes and relies on a couple of shortcuts to get through, but nothing too damning to impact the overall solidity of the movie. For the most part it works. I appreciated its originality, specifically with putting black characters in such a prominent position during that time period. Nice touch.
Resolution: 7
Not a perfect wrapping of the story, but feels complete nonetheless. I was definitely satisfied. A little bit more closure and I probably would have scored higher.
Overall: 86
If I’m being honest, I think critics sometimes suffer with trying to fit in. Desperately seeking approval from their peers, they produce like reviews that are not a fair indication of a movie’s actual quality.Damn the critics, Harlem Nights is an awesome movie and, if you haven’t checked it out, give it a shot!
Erika (17788 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
May 23, 2021 (Updated May 23, 2021)
Guy Ritchie’s newest film, Wrath of Man, is based upon a French film called le Convoyeur, or ‘Cash Truck’. It’s one of the first ‘big’ films that’s only been released in theaters here in the US.
The film was broken into chapters, with different timelines. The opening scene is a violent armored truck robbery, which set an interesting fast-paced tone right off the bat. For me, that pace didn’t stick.
Jason Statham’s character, Hill, or ‘H’ is introduced on his first day working at the same armored truck company a few months later. It’s obvious that Hill isn’t really his name, as he delays his response, and everything is not as it seems. He forms a bond, or something resembling a bond on the surface, with ‘Bullet’, who is his trainer and eventual partner. All the cash truck drivers had very odd nicknames, like Josh Hartnett’s character’s nickname was ‘Boy Sweat’. I don’t believe whatever inside joke it was referring to was ever explained. Of course, per usual, witty banter ensues, which was just kind of gross and crass. Apparently, all the other people in the theater, dudes, thought it was hilarious and it got some laughs. Of course, there was the obligatory ‘Mary Poppins’ comment concerning H’s English accent. I don’t understand why this keeps getting used, the only quip I have ever heard in real life by an American towards someone with an English accent is ‘Masterpiece Theater’.
The pace, as I said, slowed down, until the end of this ‘chapter’, when H stops his armored truck from being robbed by Post Malone. After he takes out all these robbers, he becomes a hero at the company. After a subsequent robbery, all H did was reveal his face, and bam, everyone scatters. Which was really kind of odd. I would have rather watched H tear through them like he did the first batch of robbers, but ok. Bullet then recites the jazzed-up title of this chapter, ‘He’s a dark {expletive] spirit’.
In the subsequent chapters, it becomes clear as to who H is, why the robbery at the beginning was featured, and who ends up being the rat.
Statham’s character in this film was the meanest and most ruthless character he’s ever played. Though, I’m pretty sure the movie could have used a lot more of his wrath. The other characters, portrayed by the likes of Hartnett, Holt McCallany, Andy Garcia, Rob Delany, Eddie Marsan, and Scott Eastwood, didn’t particularly stand out to me.
Overall, I was entertained during the film, I left feeling ambivalent. I think that it just wasn’t enough, maybe there needed to be more violence and more wrath. It almost needed to be more extreme, because in the end, it was neither here nor there.
The film was broken into chapters, with different timelines. The opening scene is a violent armored truck robbery, which set an interesting fast-paced tone right off the bat. For me, that pace didn’t stick.
Jason Statham’s character, Hill, or ‘H’ is introduced on his first day working at the same armored truck company a few months later. It’s obvious that Hill isn’t really his name, as he delays his response, and everything is not as it seems. He forms a bond, or something resembling a bond on the surface, with ‘Bullet’, who is his trainer and eventual partner. All the cash truck drivers had very odd nicknames, like Josh Hartnett’s character’s nickname was ‘Boy Sweat’. I don’t believe whatever inside joke it was referring to was ever explained. Of course, per usual, witty banter ensues, which was just kind of gross and crass. Apparently, all the other people in the theater, dudes, thought it was hilarious and it got some laughs. Of course, there was the obligatory ‘Mary Poppins’ comment concerning H’s English accent. I don’t understand why this keeps getting used, the only quip I have ever heard in real life by an American towards someone with an English accent is ‘Masterpiece Theater’.
The pace, as I said, slowed down, until the end of this ‘chapter’, when H stops his armored truck from being robbed by Post Malone. After he takes out all these robbers, he becomes a hero at the company. After a subsequent robbery, all H did was reveal his face, and bam, everyone scatters. Which was really kind of odd. I would have rather watched H tear through them like he did the first batch of robbers, but ok. Bullet then recites the jazzed-up title of this chapter, ‘He’s a dark {expletive] spirit’.
In the subsequent chapters, it becomes clear as to who H is, why the robbery at the beginning was featured, and who ends up being the rat.
Statham’s character in this film was the meanest and most ruthless character he’s ever played. Though, I’m pretty sure the movie could have used a lot more of his wrath. The other characters, portrayed by the likes of Hartnett, Holt McCallany, Andy Garcia, Rob Delany, Eddie Marsan, and Scott Eastwood, didn’t particularly stand out to me.
Overall, I was entertained during the film, I left feeling ambivalent. I think that it just wasn’t enough, maybe there needed to be more violence and more wrath. It almost needed to be more extreme, because in the end, it was neither here nor there.