Search
Search results
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
James Franco (1 more)
The tone
Far from a disaster
If you haven't seen The Room, then I urge you to do so at once. It's a bemusing, confusing, unintentionally hilarious 90 odd minutes that fully deserves all the cult screenings and bewildered wonder that it has garnered over the years. It's without question a perfect awful movie. And here with The Disaster Artist, based on the book of the same name, we get to see the story of just went on to get this film made.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Witchfinder's Sister in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<i><b>I think now that to be close to someone can be to underestimate them. Grow too close, and you do not see what they are capable of; or you do not see it in time.</b></i>
<i>The Witchfinder’s Sister</i> is based on true life witch hunter Matthew Hopkins that grew to fame during the English Civil War around East Anglia, hunting and killing “witches”. This book isn’t non-fiction, it’s fiction based around non-fiction! I love these sorts of books that create their own stories from something that was very much real. Not only does it make for good reading, they also bring in some true history facts, so you’re being educated on the subject as you read.
High praise goes to Underdown for this novel. I feel like historical fiction can be hard genre to get right, and considering this is a <i>debut</i> novel, I’m amazed at how well put together and beautiful this has turned out to be! I love reading historical fiction, every once in awhile, and this is the sort of book that keeps my love for the genre burning.
The writing in this novel was haunting and beautiful. Nine times out of ten, it was exactly as you would have imagined the 17th Century to be, but I felt there were a few slips that made the book feel modern. For example, would a lady in 1645 say the phrase <i><b>“shitting herself”</b></i>? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that feels like a reasonably modern phrase to me.
I loved our main character, Alice. Me and my mum were talking about historical fiction novels and how we find it hard to understand why women make the decisions they make in these books, because we’re so used to having some equality and independence. But I noted that in this book, even though Alice is inferior to her brother and his counterparts, she is still a risk taker; going against her brother's wishes & sneaking around. I liked that she was strong and a little rebellious, it was so much easier to connect with her because of this.
On the other hand. I <i>hated</i> Matthew. He was a despicable character. I can rarely hate a character in a book, even if I’m supposed to. I tend to find the good in them at some point, or have some sort of sympathy for them, but I absolutely despised Matthew. Well done to Underdown for creating such a hate-inducing character. It’s quite a hard feat, but she managed it perfectly. The same goes for Mary Phillips.
The tension was built so well in this novel, you could feel the mystery growing and growing with every page and I loved it! Though the story moved reasonably slowly, the book was still absolutely riveting and I found it extremely hard to put down when I knew it was time to get some rest.
I am so, so excited to read more from Underdown. This was an amazingly well put together and researched.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Books UK for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
<i>The Witchfinder’s Sister</i> is based on true life witch hunter Matthew Hopkins that grew to fame during the English Civil War around East Anglia, hunting and killing “witches”. This book isn’t non-fiction, it’s fiction based around non-fiction! I love these sorts of books that create their own stories from something that was very much real. Not only does it make for good reading, they also bring in some true history facts, so you’re being educated on the subject as you read.
High praise goes to Underdown for this novel. I feel like historical fiction can be hard genre to get right, and considering this is a <i>debut</i> novel, I’m amazed at how well put together and beautiful this has turned out to be! I love reading historical fiction, every once in awhile, and this is the sort of book that keeps my love for the genre burning.
The writing in this novel was haunting and beautiful. Nine times out of ten, it was exactly as you would have imagined the 17th Century to be, but I felt there were a few slips that made the book feel modern. For example, would a lady in 1645 say the phrase <i><b>“shitting herself”</b></i>? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that feels like a reasonably modern phrase to me.
I loved our main character, Alice. Me and my mum were talking about historical fiction novels and how we find it hard to understand why women make the decisions they make in these books, because we’re so used to having some equality and independence. But I noted that in this book, even though Alice is inferior to her brother and his counterparts, she is still a risk taker; going against her brother's wishes & sneaking around. I liked that she was strong and a little rebellious, it was so much easier to connect with her because of this.
On the other hand. I <i>hated</i> Matthew. He was a despicable character. I can rarely hate a character in a book, even if I’m supposed to. I tend to find the good in them at some point, or have some sort of sympathy for them, but I absolutely despised Matthew. Well done to Underdown for creating such a hate-inducing character. It’s quite a hard feat, but she managed it perfectly. The same goes for Mary Phillips.
The tension was built so well in this novel, you could feel the mystery growing and growing with every page and I loved it! Though the story moved reasonably slowly, the book was still absolutely riveting and I found it extremely hard to put down when I knew it was time to get some rest.
I am so, so excited to read more from Underdown. This was an amazingly well put together and researched.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Books UK for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Last House Guest in Books
Jun 21, 2019
Typically the locals and the summer visitors don't mix much in the resort town of Littleport, Maine. But when summer resident Sadie Loman and local Avery Greer meet, they form a fast, intense friendship that lasts nearly a decade. It ends the night of the Plus-One party--the one night where locals and summer guests come together at the summer's end. It's also the night Sadie dies; her body is found on Breaker Breach, where she has drowned after falling off a cliff. The police believe Sadie has committed suicide, but Avery isn't so sure. A year later, she begins digging more into Sadie's death. What she finds leaves her more convinced that ever that Sadie's death wasn't at her own hand--and the more she discovers, the more she wonders if she's in danger, too.
So, I read this book in about 24 hours. It's a fast, quick read. A lot of the plot seems familiar--it was the second book of the last three, I'd read, for instance, where someone died suspiciously after falling off a cliff. The plot definitely has the tried-and-true feel of "friend obsessed with richer/prettier/etc. friend's death yet won't leave it to police even though it makes no sense to investigate on their own." You know where I'm coming from, right? You've been there before.
In this case, Avery is, of course, the local, with no money, who has been taken in by Sadie's family. They've funded her coursework, given her a place to live, and a job--she oversees all of the Loman's rental properties in Littleport. They even bought her grandmother's house. So Sadie--and her family--mean a lot to Avery.
"Sadie was my anchor, my coconspirator, the force that had grounded my life for so many years. If I imagined her jumping, then everything tilted precariously, just as it had that night."
The book is told entirely from Avery's point of view, but it goes back and forth in time. We get the night of the party, when Sadie died, and then the present, a year later. A memorial is coming up for Sadie, dredging up memories for Avery and causing her to question what happened that night. It's an effective formula--Miranda is good at playing with time.
The book has an ominous, creepy feel to it. Weird things start happening at the rental properties for instance, and you can't help but feel that something bad is going to happen. The setting is a good one--a beachy, resort town--and it's easy to visualize the scene. I did enjoy how much this one kept me guessing. Maybe I should have figured things out earlier, but I didn't. I was intrigued about what happened to Sadie, and I kept reading because of that. That being said, I didn't really care about any of the characters in the book. Most of the characters, including the Lomans, seem rich and spoiled, and somehow, I just couldn't find a ton of affection for Avery. I was reading more out of curiosity versus an investment in their storyline.
Overall, this thriller is a quick read that kept me guessing. The characters aren't particularly likeable but the mystery is interesting and the setting somehow both ominous and picturesque. 3.5 stars.
So, I read this book in about 24 hours. It's a fast, quick read. A lot of the plot seems familiar--it was the second book of the last three, I'd read, for instance, where someone died suspiciously after falling off a cliff. The plot definitely has the tried-and-true feel of "friend obsessed with richer/prettier/etc. friend's death yet won't leave it to police even though it makes no sense to investigate on their own." You know where I'm coming from, right? You've been there before.
In this case, Avery is, of course, the local, with no money, who has been taken in by Sadie's family. They've funded her coursework, given her a place to live, and a job--she oversees all of the Loman's rental properties in Littleport. They even bought her grandmother's house. So Sadie--and her family--mean a lot to Avery.
"Sadie was my anchor, my coconspirator, the force that had grounded my life for so many years. If I imagined her jumping, then everything tilted precariously, just as it had that night."
The book is told entirely from Avery's point of view, but it goes back and forth in time. We get the night of the party, when Sadie died, and then the present, a year later. A memorial is coming up for Sadie, dredging up memories for Avery and causing her to question what happened that night. It's an effective formula--Miranda is good at playing with time.
The book has an ominous, creepy feel to it. Weird things start happening at the rental properties for instance, and you can't help but feel that something bad is going to happen. The setting is a good one--a beachy, resort town--and it's easy to visualize the scene. I did enjoy how much this one kept me guessing. Maybe I should have figured things out earlier, but I didn't. I was intrigued about what happened to Sadie, and I kept reading because of that. That being said, I didn't really care about any of the characters in the book. Most of the characters, including the Lomans, seem rich and spoiled, and somehow, I just couldn't find a ton of affection for Avery. I was reading more out of curiosity versus an investment in their storyline.
Overall, this thriller is a quick read that kept me guessing. The characters aren't particularly likeable but the mystery is interesting and the setting somehow both ominous and picturesque. 3.5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The 15:17 To Paris (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Based on book, The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, the film, The 15:17 to Paris tells the story of three America friends who stop a terrorist attempt on a train to Paris.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
Justin Young recommended track Dancing Queen by ABBA in Gold: Greatest Hits by ABBA in Music (curated)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) in Movies
Apr 1, 2021
The fight is awesome (2 more)
Jia, the little deaf girl was perhaps the best human character in the movie
The visual effects and CGI are superb
The human storyline or B-plot (1 more)
A few things that didn't make sense plot wise and some major/minor plot holes
A Battle of Titans, God Versus King, Who Will Win?
I thought this movie was really good and it was a lot of fun. They fight more than once in the movie and there is a clear winner. I'm definitely glad I went to go check it out in theaters and get that authentic "full movie theater experience" and enjoy it the way that a movie with giant monsters should be seen. The movie started off really interesting right away with us seeing Kong in his natural environment on Skull Island, almost like time stood still for him since we last saw him in Kong: Skull Island. Though he did look older in appearance. Right away you realize things are very different as we see that Kong is being monitored by hidden surveillance cameras in the forest and he seems to have found himself a little friend in the young deaf girl who greets him. That's when we're thrown for a twist as Kong throws a tree that he ripped out of the ground at the sky and it shatters. We discover that Kong is inside a giant dome on Skull Island meant to hide him from Godzilla. We're then shown a montage of different graphics such as news articles and secret Monarch files of information on both Godzilla and Kong. It shows us that Godzilla and Kong have both defeated multiple Titans and are seemingly destined to fight each other as seen in the ancient cave paintings in Godzilla: King of the Monsters. I feel like this movie definitely had it's good parts and bad parts and while it was a ton of fun it also had quite a few flaws. I really liked the action sequences and monster fight scenes. The monsters seemed to move a lot better than in some of the other movies, especially Godzilla when compared to the first Godzilla (2014) movie. The parts where they fought were some of the best parts of the film. I feel like the human part of the movie wasn't so much glossed over but didn't really have anything that was very impactful. Nothing like the death of Ford's mother or Father in Godzilla (2014) or the soldiers in Kong: Skull Island or even scientist Ishiro Serizawa in Godzilla: King of the Monsters. In fact I feel that Millie Bobby Brown's character Madison Russell and her father, Dr. Mark Russell and the whole B-plot fell kind of flat or felt kind of unnecessary to the movie. There were also some major plot holes and things that didn't make sense to me that really brought the score down from it being a great movie but I'll go over that in the spoiler section. For me this movie was still really enjoyable and worth watching in theaters. It really delivered in what you wanted for a giant monster movie so if you're thinking about getting it on HBOMax, I got to say I give this movie my "must see seal of approval" and I give it a 7/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review was too long to post here so it can be found on my website or check out the review on YouTube.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review-7-10
https://youtu.be/3E3b1e8OqU4
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review was too long to post here so it can be found on my website or check out the review on YouTube.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review-7-10
https://youtu.be/3E3b1e8OqU4
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Bonfire in Books
May 16, 2018
This was first posted on <I><a href="http://theghastlygrimoire.com"; target="new">The Ghastly Grimoire</a></I>.
After completing this book, I think it’s safe to say that my reading slump has finally come to an end. I devoured Krysten Ritter’s debut novel, Bonfire, with a hunger I haven’t felt in months. If you take into account that I’m from a small town of a whopping fifteen hundred people, it’s easier to realize how much I am able to relate to the main character of this book, Abigail Williams. That, and Ritter hits on some nostalgia too, because in a way, Bonfire reads like Erin Brokovich meets Sweet Home Alabama, with distinctly darker notes.
Character development plays a vital role in how a book turns out. If your cast is too flat, it makes the book a total bore. On the other hand, if you’ve got characters that are dynamic and, in the case of several individuals in Bonfire, two-faced, the book is far more likely to entertain. In this area, Ritter has excelled at creating that small-town feel with many of the types of people those living in small towns meet. Let’s face it, even with Abigail moving to Chicago, there’s always those people who get out. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they’re gone for good. (In my case, I chose to come back.)
Plotwise, Ritter keeps the ball rolling. I didn’t feel like the story was dragging at any point. In fact, it’s the way that the story continues to unfold that kept me up until three this morning finishing it. Bonfire plays host to a story within a story, taking the corrupt corporations one step beyond contamination and into a far deeper, far worse crime. Just when things appear over, an entirely new turn keeps the story going. I won’t lie: I nearly bawled last night while I finished reading it.
There is only one aspect of this book that truly miffed me, and it sorta deals with the romance aspect. As many of my readers know, I abhor romance plots. Especially those that seem forced, rather than natural. That said, I really don’t want to divulge any spoilers, but I will say this: for being such a strong, independent character, there are some actions that Abigail Williams takes in this book that simply aren’t natural. They feel incredibly forced and out of character, and I can’t help but think it’s there more as a cop-out for the final twist in the story than going about it in some other clever manner.
That said, after finishing Bonfire, I feel it is safe to say that this debut novel is worth reading. Initially, I nearly forgot I had it until I saw it was one of the options for this month’s Book of the Month Club. Considering I’m very particular, I almost chose it before realizing I already had it technically. So if you’re wanting to pick it up cheap, there you go. (I’m actually still debating grabbing it through Book of the Month Club myself, because hey! I loved it.)
I would like to thank Penguin’s First to Read program for providing me with a copy of this book for the purpose of unbiased review.
After completing this book, I think it’s safe to say that my reading slump has finally come to an end. I devoured Krysten Ritter’s debut novel, Bonfire, with a hunger I haven’t felt in months. If you take into account that I’m from a small town of a whopping fifteen hundred people, it’s easier to realize how much I am able to relate to the main character of this book, Abigail Williams. That, and Ritter hits on some nostalgia too, because in a way, Bonfire reads like Erin Brokovich meets Sweet Home Alabama, with distinctly darker notes.
Character development plays a vital role in how a book turns out. If your cast is too flat, it makes the book a total bore. On the other hand, if you’ve got characters that are dynamic and, in the case of several individuals in Bonfire, two-faced, the book is far more likely to entertain. In this area, Ritter has excelled at creating that small-town feel with many of the types of people those living in small towns meet. Let’s face it, even with Abigail moving to Chicago, there’s always those people who get out. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they’re gone for good. (In my case, I chose to come back.)
Plotwise, Ritter keeps the ball rolling. I didn’t feel like the story was dragging at any point. In fact, it’s the way that the story continues to unfold that kept me up until three this morning finishing it. Bonfire plays host to a story within a story, taking the corrupt corporations one step beyond contamination and into a far deeper, far worse crime. Just when things appear over, an entirely new turn keeps the story going. I won’t lie: I nearly bawled last night while I finished reading it.
There is only one aspect of this book that truly miffed me, and it sorta deals with the romance aspect. As many of my readers know, I abhor romance plots. Especially those that seem forced, rather than natural. That said, I really don’t want to divulge any spoilers, but I will say this: for being such a strong, independent character, there are some actions that Abigail Williams takes in this book that simply aren’t natural. They feel incredibly forced and out of character, and I can’t help but think it’s there more as a cop-out for the final twist in the story than going about it in some other clever manner.
That said, after finishing Bonfire, I feel it is safe to say that this debut novel is worth reading. Initially, I nearly forgot I had it until I saw it was one of the options for this month’s Book of the Month Club. Considering I’m very particular, I almost chose it before realizing I already had it technically. So if you’re wanting to pick it up cheap, there you go. (I’m actually still debating grabbing it through Book of the Month Club myself, because hey! I loved it.)
I would like to thank Penguin’s First to Read program for providing me with a copy of this book for the purpose of unbiased review.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated An Unwanted Guest in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Eerie read with a rather tidy ending
Mitchell's Inn is a lovely lodge far away from the hustle and bustle of it all--there's no wifi, just a relaxing setting, good food, and comfortable rooms. But this particular weekend, things go awry when a bad storm hits, covering the Inn in ice and knocking out the power: there's no phone service or the ability for anyone to leave the premises. Then, by morning, one of the guests is dead. It could be an accident, but no one can say for sure. And when the second guest dies, it's certain: they are trapped with a murderer. There's no power, no contact with the world, and someone is slowly killing them off. Is someone else next and how do the remaining guests stay safe?
"It feels like they're playing at something, some sort of parlor game, or murder mystery evening, with the lights out. Only no one's having fun."
Believe it or not, I've never read a book by Shari Lapena, but I was drawn to this one due to the Agatha Christie comparisons, as I'm a sucker for anything similar to Christie. And this one definitely had some likenesses, with the guests trapped in the Inn, limiting our pool of suspects (and victims). Weirdly enough, my brain kept occasionally going to the movie Clue too - silly, I know, but something about the setting!
This book draws you in from the beginning; the first death happens fairly quickly. There are a lot of characters to keep track of: most are in pairs, and I found myself flipping back a page or two trying to remember who was attached to whom for a while. The narration style is in very short paragraphs, each from the perspective of a different guest. This gives you a bit of whiplash feel at times, as you never really get to fully immerse yourself in anyone's point of view. Still, while I did feel things slowed slightly after the first death, for the most part it keeps things moving fairly quickly and lets you see things from a variety of sides.
Lapena is also very descriptive and sets the scene well. It's easy to picture this lovely Inn--which quickly turns dark and disastrous. The book is actually creepy and eerie at times; I won't go into detail as to why, to avoid spoilers, but I definitely found myself a little spooked. In fact, I was surprised the guests were so calm in the beginning, what with a dead woman and no power! (Don't worry, it won't last.) The novel allows you to think how you'd feel in that particular situation. It certainly doesn't encourage you to go vacation at a remote Inn anytime soon.
I was certainly completely perplexed at whodunnit, so kudos to Lapena for that. With such a limited cast of characters (and getting slimmer every moment), that's quite a feat. I thought the ending was a bit tidy and I was left feeling oddly letdown; I'm not sure I can even explain why.
Overall, I enjoyed this one even I didn't wildly love it. It does have a bit of a Christie feel to it, and it kept me guessing. The scene setting is excellent, and I liked the eerie, trapped sense I felt while reading. It wraps up a tad neatly, but I'd still recommend it.
"It feels like they're playing at something, some sort of parlor game, or murder mystery evening, with the lights out. Only no one's having fun."
Believe it or not, I've never read a book by Shari Lapena, but I was drawn to this one due to the Agatha Christie comparisons, as I'm a sucker for anything similar to Christie. And this one definitely had some likenesses, with the guests trapped in the Inn, limiting our pool of suspects (and victims). Weirdly enough, my brain kept occasionally going to the movie Clue too - silly, I know, but something about the setting!
This book draws you in from the beginning; the first death happens fairly quickly. There are a lot of characters to keep track of: most are in pairs, and I found myself flipping back a page or two trying to remember who was attached to whom for a while. The narration style is in very short paragraphs, each from the perspective of a different guest. This gives you a bit of whiplash feel at times, as you never really get to fully immerse yourself in anyone's point of view. Still, while I did feel things slowed slightly after the first death, for the most part it keeps things moving fairly quickly and lets you see things from a variety of sides.
Lapena is also very descriptive and sets the scene well. It's easy to picture this lovely Inn--which quickly turns dark and disastrous. The book is actually creepy and eerie at times; I won't go into detail as to why, to avoid spoilers, but I definitely found myself a little spooked. In fact, I was surprised the guests were so calm in the beginning, what with a dead woman and no power! (Don't worry, it won't last.) The novel allows you to think how you'd feel in that particular situation. It certainly doesn't encourage you to go vacation at a remote Inn anytime soon.
I was certainly completely perplexed at whodunnit, so kudos to Lapena for that. With such a limited cast of characters (and getting slimmer every moment), that's quite a feat. I thought the ending was a bit tidy and I was left feeling oddly letdown; I'm not sure I can even explain why.
Overall, I enjoyed this one even I didn't wildly love it. It does have a bit of a Christie feel to it, and it kept me guessing. The scene setting is excellent, and I liked the eerie, trapped sense I felt while reading. It wraps up a tad neatly, but I'd still recommend it.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated We Were Liars in Books
May 20, 2019
I feel like I went into We Were Liars by E. Lockhart blind. The synopsis intrigued me, but it didn't really give anything away. I just wish I had known more about this book because while it wasn't a bad read, it was just a mediocre read, and it didn't really have much to do with lying at all.
Cadence (Cady for short) is a Sinclair. She is part of a very rich family. In fact, they have their own island. She, her cousins Mirren and Johnny, and their friend Gat, nicknamed "The Liars," all vacation there with their families every summer. The Liars are all the same age, and during Summer 15 (when the Liars were 15 years old), Cady has an accident which leaves her with temporary amnesia. As she slowly gets her memory back, she learns some very harsh and painful truths about what really happened that summer.
We Were Liars never explains why the teens were nicknamed The Liars. I did find out that a deleted scene from the book explains how they got the name. I think this scene should have been left in since I feel it was relevant to the book. Most of the plot is about Cady looking back over her summers with the Liars and her summers since the eventful Summer 15. I will say that I never saw that major plot twist coming! When I read it, I was left with my mouth hanging open. I will say We Were Liars had one of the best plot twists I've read. Well done to E. Lockhart for that! This book does not have a cliffhanger ending, so all questions are answered and things are explained quite well.
The pacing is what lets this book down. I found it to be very slow. Most of the time, I was just reading about the boring lives of rich, privileged teenagers. Everything was so mundane. It just droned on and on for the most part. Luckily, the chapters are quite short, so I soldiered on. I'm glad I did because the section marked "The Truth" was really good! This is the section that contained the plot twist and when the book actually went at a decent pace. I just wish I didn't have to read through 75 percent of the book for the pacing to pick up.
While the pacing was slow, I did feel that the characters were well written. I enjoyed reading about everything from the perspective of Cady. I feel that she was the most interesting. I enjoyed watching her grow up throughout her teenage years and her feelings about everything. I also adored her feelings for Gat. I loved Gat's philosophy about everything. I felt he was very mature and wise beyond his years. Johnny and Mirren were also interesting in their own way. I felt that Johnny was the humorous one and Mirren the more serious out of the Liars. I enjoyed reading about how the Liars felt about their parents' and aunts' greed and how it was the downfall of everything.
Trigger warnings for We Were Liars include mentions of the phrase sexual intercourse (although there was no sex), kissing, arson, death, underage drinking, and greed.
Overall, We Were Liars is a decent read although it is a forgettable one. The plot twist is what really saved this book from being too boring. I would recommend We Were Liars by E. Lockhart simply for that amazing plot twist!
Cadence (Cady for short) is a Sinclair. She is part of a very rich family. In fact, they have their own island. She, her cousins Mirren and Johnny, and their friend Gat, nicknamed "The Liars," all vacation there with their families every summer. The Liars are all the same age, and during Summer 15 (when the Liars were 15 years old), Cady has an accident which leaves her with temporary amnesia. As she slowly gets her memory back, she learns some very harsh and painful truths about what really happened that summer.
We Were Liars never explains why the teens were nicknamed The Liars. I did find out that a deleted scene from the book explains how they got the name. I think this scene should have been left in since I feel it was relevant to the book. Most of the plot is about Cady looking back over her summers with the Liars and her summers since the eventful Summer 15. I will say that I never saw that major plot twist coming! When I read it, I was left with my mouth hanging open. I will say We Were Liars had one of the best plot twists I've read. Well done to E. Lockhart for that! This book does not have a cliffhanger ending, so all questions are answered and things are explained quite well.
The pacing is what lets this book down. I found it to be very slow. Most of the time, I was just reading about the boring lives of rich, privileged teenagers. Everything was so mundane. It just droned on and on for the most part. Luckily, the chapters are quite short, so I soldiered on. I'm glad I did because the section marked "The Truth" was really good! This is the section that contained the plot twist and when the book actually went at a decent pace. I just wish I didn't have to read through 75 percent of the book for the pacing to pick up.
While the pacing was slow, I did feel that the characters were well written. I enjoyed reading about everything from the perspective of Cady. I feel that she was the most interesting. I enjoyed watching her grow up throughout her teenage years and her feelings about everything. I also adored her feelings for Gat. I loved Gat's philosophy about everything. I felt he was very mature and wise beyond his years. Johnny and Mirren were also interesting in their own way. I felt that Johnny was the humorous one and Mirren the more serious out of the Liars. I enjoyed reading about how the Liars felt about their parents' and aunts' greed and how it was the downfall of everything.
Trigger warnings for We Were Liars include mentions of the phrase sexual intercourse (although there was no sex), kissing, arson, death, underage drinking, and greed.
Overall, We Were Liars is a decent read although it is a forgettable one. The plot twist is what really saved this book from being too boring. I would recommend We Were Liars by E. Lockhart simply for that amazing plot twist!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Good Boys (2019) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Repetitive. (1 more)
Too similar to other R-rated teen comedies.
Thor Casts Anal Bead Nunchucks
“Bean Bag Boys for life!” In Good Boys, that’s the motto for three 12-year-old best friends that are finding the sixth grade way more profound and coercing than the fifth grade or any other grade before it ever was. Max (Jacob Tremblay) is at the age where girls aren’t so gross and are actually quite arousing, Thor (Brady Noon) is giving up on who he is and what he loves in a bold attempt to try to fit in with kids who he thinks are cool, and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) mostly just loves Magic: The Gathering, treating women with respect, and being honest.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.