Search
Search results
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Rachel McAdams and Dan Stevens steal most of the scenes (1 more)
A real feelgood movie that spoofs the unspoofable pretty well
My lovely farce
Will Ferrell's output over the last few years has been decidedly patchy. I have to go back to "Get Hard" to find one of his movies that really got to my funny bone. But this latest Netflix offering hits the spot for me.
We start with the song recently voted the number one Eurovision song of all time by UK viewers: "Waterloo" by Abba. Young Lars Erickssong (LOL) (Alfie Melia) is transfixed watching the 1974 Eurovision winner with his recently bereaved father and local Lothario Erick (Pierce Brosnan). (Mental note to women: never marry Brosnan on screen... he gets through wives faster than you can murder "S.O.S."). Also present are his friends and young Sigrit ("probably not by sister") Ericksdottir (Sophia-Grace Donnelly). Lars vows to one day stand on that stage and make his father and his remote Icelandic fishing village proud.
Now all grown up, Lars (now Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (now Rachel McAdams) are still pursuing their dream of representing Iceland in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. They are, of course, dreadful - - so they should fit right in! But their way is blocked by the immensely talented Katiana (Demi Lovato) and all seems hopeless. Will Sigrit's faith in the power of the Elves see them through?
There's an obvious problem here. The Eurovision Song Contest is in itself so bat-s**t bonkers that it is almost impossible to spoof. (If anyone is not on this wavelength, checkout the genuine Russian entry in this year's (cancelled) contest on Youtube). But the team here (writers Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele and director David "The Judge" Dobkin) do a really great job. I'd love to know what a US audience - who I guess will mostly be unfamiliar with Eurovision - make of this. Since Australia are now honorary Europeans in the contest.... wouldn't it be great if there was a Mexican mariachi band attending and a country and western act from the States? (Brits would love the US to be involved.... as spoofed in the film, there's only one country European's hate more than the UK.... be nice to have someone else to join us in the "nul points" club!)
Wherever you may be on the "Ferrell-funny-or-not-ometer", there's one thing I hope we can all agree on here, and that is that Rachel McAdams continues to shine as a comic lead. She was fantastic in "Game Night" - one of my favourite comedies of recent years - and here she is both gorgeous and hilarious. She knocks it out of the park playing the elf-loving Icelandic pixie with the golden voice. (McAdams "sings" but is significantly "helped" in the mix by Swedish pop star Molly Sandén (aka My Marianne)).
Here she even gets to almost reprise her wonderful "YEESSSSS! Oh no, he died!" line from "Game Night".
Almost matching her in the scene-stealing stakes though is Downton's Dan Stevens as Lemtov: a Russian 'Tom Jones'-like contestant singing "Lion of Love" ("Let's get together; I'm a lion lover; And I hunt for love!"). He's DEFINITELY not gay ("There are no gays in Russia") but are his multi-millions enough to turn Sigrit's head?
For those who love their annual Eurovision parties, there are also an impressive array of nice cameos that will delight.
But where the film-makers really score (no pun intended) is making the music so fitting. Some of the tracks make you think "Yeah, if this was the real content, this might have got my vote". Director Dobkin is quoted as saying "It's okay if it's funny, but it has to be really good music. It has to still be great and just kitschy enough to be Eurovision, because that's part of what's fun about Eurovision" (Source: Vulture). Very true. This success is down to the involvement of pop writer/producer Savan Kotecha on the project: the man behind hits by Katy Petty, Ariana Grande and Ellie Goulding.
A comedy needs to make me laugh, and this one really did - numerous times. It's not just the dialogue. Some of the cut-away scenes are priceless and perfectly executed: jumping whales; a collapsing glacier; a small slamming door!
Sure, it borrows from a number of other sources in its plot: most notably THAT episode of "Father Ted" and the rap-battle scenes from "Pitch Perfect". And sure, some of the outRAGEOUS Icelandic accents sometimes swerve into an alarming mix of Indian, Welsh and Caribbean dialects! But above all, this is movie with real heart. The plot is pretty well signposted, but the finale still packs a (surprisingly) hefty emotional punch, and it leaves you with a really nice afterglow.
As we struggle out of Covid lockdown, it may not be a vaccine, but it is a pretty good medicine for the side-effects. Did I love this? Jaja Ding Dong!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-eurovision-song-contest-the-story-of-fire-saga-2020/ ).
We start with the song recently voted the number one Eurovision song of all time by UK viewers: "Waterloo" by Abba. Young Lars Erickssong (LOL) (Alfie Melia) is transfixed watching the 1974 Eurovision winner with his recently bereaved father and local Lothario Erick (Pierce Brosnan). (Mental note to women: never marry Brosnan on screen... he gets through wives faster than you can murder "S.O.S."). Also present are his friends and young Sigrit ("probably not by sister") Ericksdottir (Sophia-Grace Donnelly). Lars vows to one day stand on that stage and make his father and his remote Icelandic fishing village proud.
Now all grown up, Lars (now Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (now Rachel McAdams) are still pursuing their dream of representing Iceland in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. They are, of course, dreadful - - so they should fit right in! But their way is blocked by the immensely talented Katiana (Demi Lovato) and all seems hopeless. Will Sigrit's faith in the power of the Elves see them through?
There's an obvious problem here. The Eurovision Song Contest is in itself so bat-s**t bonkers that it is almost impossible to spoof. (If anyone is not on this wavelength, checkout the genuine Russian entry in this year's (cancelled) contest on Youtube). But the team here (writers Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele and director David "The Judge" Dobkin) do a really great job. I'd love to know what a US audience - who I guess will mostly be unfamiliar with Eurovision - make of this. Since Australia are now honorary Europeans in the contest.... wouldn't it be great if there was a Mexican mariachi band attending and a country and western act from the States? (Brits would love the US to be involved.... as spoofed in the film, there's only one country European's hate more than the UK.... be nice to have someone else to join us in the "nul points" club!)
Wherever you may be on the "Ferrell-funny-or-not-ometer", there's one thing I hope we can all agree on here, and that is that Rachel McAdams continues to shine as a comic lead. She was fantastic in "Game Night" - one of my favourite comedies of recent years - and here she is both gorgeous and hilarious. She knocks it out of the park playing the elf-loving Icelandic pixie with the golden voice. (McAdams "sings" but is significantly "helped" in the mix by Swedish pop star Molly Sandén (aka My Marianne)).
Here she even gets to almost reprise her wonderful "YEESSSSS! Oh no, he died!" line from "Game Night".
Almost matching her in the scene-stealing stakes though is Downton's Dan Stevens as Lemtov: a Russian 'Tom Jones'-like contestant singing "Lion of Love" ("Let's get together; I'm a lion lover; And I hunt for love!"). He's DEFINITELY not gay ("There are no gays in Russia") but are his multi-millions enough to turn Sigrit's head?
For those who love their annual Eurovision parties, there are also an impressive array of nice cameos that will delight.
But where the film-makers really score (no pun intended) is making the music so fitting. Some of the tracks make you think "Yeah, if this was the real content, this might have got my vote". Director Dobkin is quoted as saying "It's okay if it's funny, but it has to be really good music. It has to still be great and just kitschy enough to be Eurovision, because that's part of what's fun about Eurovision" (Source: Vulture). Very true. This success is down to the involvement of pop writer/producer Savan Kotecha on the project: the man behind hits by Katy Petty, Ariana Grande and Ellie Goulding.
A comedy needs to make me laugh, and this one really did - numerous times. It's not just the dialogue. Some of the cut-away scenes are priceless and perfectly executed: jumping whales; a collapsing glacier; a small slamming door!
Sure, it borrows from a number of other sources in its plot: most notably THAT episode of "Father Ted" and the rap-battle scenes from "Pitch Perfect". And sure, some of the outRAGEOUS Icelandic accents sometimes swerve into an alarming mix of Indian, Welsh and Caribbean dialects! But above all, this is movie with real heart. The plot is pretty well signposted, but the finale still packs a (surprisingly) hefty emotional punch, and it leaves you with a really nice afterglow.
As we struggle out of Covid lockdown, it may not be a vaccine, but it is a pretty good medicine for the side-effects. Did I love this? Jaja Ding Dong!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-eurovision-song-contest-the-story-of-fire-saga-2020/ ).
KatieLouCreate (162 KP) rated Nerve (2016) in Movies
Jan 3, 2018
Great Film
I watched this with my friend as a one off. We wasn't sure what to expect from it but we had already sat down to eat and thought why on earth not. At first, I thought it was going to be a cheesy stereotypical film about teenagers online. Especially with all the internet searching screens at the beginning. I restrained from rolling my eyes. But as the film developed I became hooked. It was a light thriller almost. The type where it has you on the edge of your seat because of the suspense and horrors of what is happening. It had just the right amount of love interest for me. It did not entirely dominate the film, nor did it take away from the story line, but it did happen fairly quickly. Another oddity I found was one of the characters, Tommy. I liked this character. He was interesting and funny. But I did not understand his passiveness in the film. It was clear he is interested in Vee (the protagonist) but does nothing to show his interest and stop her falling for Ian. As well as that, he just randomly knows these computer hacker internet websters? There is nothing to indicate why he knows them yet they become crucial towards the end of the film. It would be nice to have a little background on them.
Other than that, I enjoyed watching the film. I believe it raised awareness about the dangers of anonymity on the internet. It also shows that sometimes risks should be taken. We should do things that scare us and push us out of our comfort zones every-now-and-then. But do not go too far. It could be a very dangerous game.
Other than that, I enjoyed watching the film. I believe it raised awareness about the dangers of anonymity on the internet. It also shows that sometimes risks should be taken. We should do things that scare us and push us out of our comfort zones every-now-and-then. But do not go too far. It could be a very dangerous game.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated The Movie Crypt in Podcasts
Jan 8, 2018
Adam Green and Joe Lynch (3 more)
Different guest each week
Heartfelt stories
It's pretty damned funny
Awesome Pod for anyone who wants to make movies
Adam and Joe are two of the best "indie" film makers out there. Adam brought one of the horror genres newest icons to life in the form of Victor Crowley and Joe has been responsible for a pair of my favorite independent films with the births of Mayhem and Everly. But did you ever wonder how they got their starts in the film industry? Or what it takes to make a horror film? Or how some of your favorite actors writers directors and people involved in the industry got to be where they are today?
This pod brings it all to light. They hold nothing back and tell all things. Both good and bad.
With awesome guests such as horror icons Kane Hodder, Sid Haig, Bill Moseley and Ray Wise as well as fellow filmmakers the likes of Darren Lynn Boussman, Adam Wingard and Ti West. The boys leave no stone unturned as they bring everything to the table.
The pod is also welcome to subscription through Patreon with some cool little gifts to those who want to donate. Including Film commentaries once a month, first come basis viewer mail questions and Hollywood tell all answers to industry questions in a segment called Ask Dr. Arwen, named after Green's Yorkie and fellow show host.
I would recommend this Podcast to anyone who wants to learn the ins and outs of the film world told from a perspective that is understandable to anyone. And it's good for a few laughs as well. I've been a devoted listener since 2013. And the vast library of webisodes is available to anyone via iTunes and other podcast generators.
Listen and enjoy folks. You won't be disappointed.
This pod brings it all to light. They hold nothing back and tell all things. Both good and bad.
With awesome guests such as horror icons Kane Hodder, Sid Haig, Bill Moseley and Ray Wise as well as fellow filmmakers the likes of Darren Lynn Boussman, Adam Wingard and Ti West. The boys leave no stone unturned as they bring everything to the table.
The pod is also welcome to subscription through Patreon with some cool little gifts to those who want to donate. Including Film commentaries once a month, first come basis viewer mail questions and Hollywood tell all answers to industry questions in a segment called Ask Dr. Arwen, named after Green's Yorkie and fellow show host.
I would recommend this Podcast to anyone who wants to learn the ins and outs of the film world told from a perspective that is understandable to anyone. And it's good for a few laughs as well. I've been a devoted listener since 2013. And the vast library of webisodes is available to anyone via iTunes and other podcast generators.
Listen and enjoy folks. You won't be disappointed.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sons of Thunder (Brothers in Arms Collection) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I loved the concept of Sons of Thunder. It had great potential and I’ve seen tons of five-star reviews for it. Sadly it didn’t meet my expectations.
I had a hard time reading it for a few reasons. One was the writing. It had a sort of funny style. It was as if short dramatic phrases were placed at the end of a paragraph, but the phrases were not dramatic in any way, nor were the necessary. It made the whole thing feel awkward. It was also hard to follow and I got confused a lot.
The second was the romance. I immediately saw and understood how Markos looked at Sofia. But their relationship jumped around from courteous to in-love to friends to not-talking, and I couldn’t understand where they actually stood or how they saw each other. It was like a whole first chunk of their relationship was missing from the book. There was no connection to the characters.
Third, I didn’t like the Chicago club stuff at all. It turned me off right away.
As I mentioned above I didn’t finish Sons of Thunder. There was nothing compelling me to continue, there wasn’t any plot, and the characters were beginning to aggravate me and I didn’t connect with them. I skipped to the very last page just to see what happened, and was not surprised to see that exactly what I thought would happen, did happen.
I was very disappointed by Sons of Thunder, especially considering all the five star reviews on Goodreads and Amazon. I really wish I had loved it, but I must share my 100% honest opinion. Please know that I and the few other readers who didn’t like it are the minority by a landslide. I hope you’ll consider other reviews before you make a decision.
I had a hard time reading it for a few reasons. One was the writing. It had a sort of funny style. It was as if short dramatic phrases were placed at the end of a paragraph, but the phrases were not dramatic in any way, nor were the necessary. It made the whole thing feel awkward. It was also hard to follow and I got confused a lot.
The second was the romance. I immediately saw and understood how Markos looked at Sofia. But their relationship jumped around from courteous to in-love to friends to not-talking, and I couldn’t understand where they actually stood or how they saw each other. It was like a whole first chunk of their relationship was missing from the book. There was no connection to the characters.
Third, I didn’t like the Chicago club stuff at all. It turned me off right away.
As I mentioned above I didn’t finish Sons of Thunder. There was nothing compelling me to continue, there wasn’t any plot, and the characters were beginning to aggravate me and I didn’t connect with them. I skipped to the very last page just to see what happened, and was not surprised to see that exactly what I thought would happen, did happen.
I was very disappointed by Sons of Thunder, especially considering all the five star reviews on Goodreads and Amazon. I really wish I had loved it, but I must share my 100% honest opinion. Please know that I and the few other readers who didn’t like it are the minority by a landslide. I hope you’ll consider other reviews before you make a decision.
Fred (860 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
May 3, 2018
Special effects are great, except Bruce Banner's head in the Hulkbuster suit. (4 more)
Great action scenes.
Great seeing just about all the Marvel characters.
PETER DINKLAGE!
Josh Brolin is great as Thanos.
Too talky at points. (5 more)
Some weird, illogical, wtf parts.
Guardians seemed out of place acting so serious.
Wasn't moved by the ending. Was kind of like, "Okay...so what? This is a comic-book movie."
Too long to introduce everyone.
Not funny.
Hype says it's better than it actually is
I knew this movie wasn't going to live up to the hype. Just like Black Panther, it's just an okay movie. Just like every other movie made these days, it starts strong, gets boring, then ends strong. Except it doesn't end too strong. It sort of ends with a whimper. I see memes where people were devastated at the ending. I felt like it was meaningless, as we know this is a comic book movie & all will be put right in the next installment.
I feel one of the main problems of the movie was the humor. When you have great Marvel movies, like The Guardians of the Galaxy films, and Thor: Ragnarok, which relied on a lot of humor and then are intertwined with a movie so dark, so deathly serious & try to keep the humor of those films, it just doesn't work. The Guardians, Thor & Bruce Banner were all throwing out jokes, but they mostly fell flat. It's hard to smile when Thanos is being an absolute terror.
All this being said, I did like the movie. Where I probably wouldn't watch Black Panther again, I would definitely watch this again. I actually have BP a 7, just like this film, I would probably change my score to a 5, as this movie was better, but doesn't deserve higher than a 7.
I feel one of the main problems of the movie was the humor. When you have great Marvel movies, like The Guardians of the Galaxy films, and Thor: Ragnarok, which relied on a lot of humor and then are intertwined with a movie so dark, so deathly serious & try to keep the humor of those films, it just doesn't work. The Guardians, Thor & Bruce Banner were all throwing out jokes, but they mostly fell flat. It's hard to smile when Thanos is being an absolute terror.
All this being said, I did like the movie. Where I probably wouldn't watch Black Panther again, I would definitely watch this again. I actually have BP a 7, just like this film, I would probably change my score to a 5, as this movie was better, but doesn't deserve higher than a 7.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2346 KP) rated Murder She Wrote: Manuscript for Murder in Books
Feb 6, 2019
Is Jessica Reading a Motive for Murder?
When Thomas Rudd approaches Jessica Fletcher after one of her signings and accuses Lane Barfield, their mutual publisher, of skimming money from their royalties, Jessica can hardly believe it. Within a couple of days, both of the men are dead. However, Jessica begins to suspect that the political thriller Lane asked her to read was to blame. Is she correct? If so, is she the next target?
I had a mixed reaction to this book. On the one hand, I got very caught up in the plot, and always had a hard time putting it down. There are twists and turns and plenty of danger, and I loved it. It would have worked better, however, if it weren’t a Murder, She Wrote book. It certainly doesn’t fit with the rest of the franchise in tone, with several events being several shades grayer than we got, at least on the TV show. (I’ve only read one other book, the previous one.) We see several of the regular side characters, but they and their relationship with Jessica was off. What I suspect was supposed to be funny came across as rather mean. These characters wouldn’t interact this way. There’s also the fact that one of the plots in the book gets dropped in favor of the other. Honestly, I think there are two good storylines here, and they should have gotten their own books. This is the second book that Jon Land has written in the franchise, and I’m wondering if his efforts to turn things darker are going to be a permanent thing or if he will adjust better to the light tone of this franchise.
I had a mixed reaction to this book. On the one hand, I got very caught up in the plot, and always had a hard time putting it down. There are twists and turns and plenty of danger, and I loved it. It would have worked better, however, if it weren’t a Murder, She Wrote book. It certainly doesn’t fit with the rest of the franchise in tone, with several events being several shades grayer than we got, at least on the TV show. (I’ve only read one other book, the previous one.) We see several of the regular side characters, but they and their relationship with Jessica was off. What I suspect was supposed to be funny came across as rather mean. These characters wouldn’t interact this way. There’s also the fact that one of the plots in the book gets dropped in favor of the other. Honestly, I think there are two good storylines here, and they should have gotten their own books. This is the second book that Jon Land has written in the franchise, and I’m wondering if his efforts to turn things darker are going to be a permanent thing or if he will adjust better to the light tone of this franchise.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Night of the Living Trekkies in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Not as imaginative or funny as I'd hoped, <u>Night of the Living Trekkies</u> was still a fun read, some may even call it a brainless read. As far as zombie stories go, this doesn't cover any new territory, but that's where Star Trek helps the book out. Chock full of references, storyline parallels, and chapters named after episodes, it's clear this is devoted to Star Trek fans, whether they be Trekkies or Trekkers. The authors clearly know what they're writing about and lovingly poke fun at Star Trek and its fans. There's even some Star Wars love thrown in for good measure, and not with the usual rivalry between the two either.
In order to fully enjoy this book, I think it is essential that readers have a passable knowledge of the Star Trek universe, like zombies, and appreciate pulp, or at least have two of those three; otherwise, I can't imagine this would appeal to anyone outside of those factors. Overall, I had a good time with <u>Night of the Living Trekkies</u>, there were moments that made me laugh-out-loud (I especially liked the tale of the "Red Shirts") and though it's predictable, the story was well-told, and at around 250 pages, it's a very easy read. Readers could do worse than to pick up this book; what you see on the awesome cover is pretty much what you get on the inside: pure, pulpy entertainment that's well-envisioned and could easily be made into a movie.
3.5 Warp Speed
This has one of the best trailers I've ever seen, certainly the best book trailer:
Not part of the book at all but definitely goes along with it: http://molitorious.blogspot.com/2009/06/zombie-trek.html
In order to fully enjoy this book, I think it is essential that readers have a passable knowledge of the Star Trek universe, like zombies, and appreciate pulp, or at least have two of those three; otherwise, I can't imagine this would appeal to anyone outside of those factors. Overall, I had a good time with <u>Night of the Living Trekkies</u>, there were moments that made me laugh-out-loud (I especially liked the tale of the "Red Shirts") and though it's predictable, the story was well-told, and at around 250 pages, it's a very easy read. Readers could do worse than to pick up this book; what you see on the awesome cover is pretty much what you get on the inside: pure, pulpy entertainment that's well-envisioned and could easily be made into a movie.
3.5 Warp Speed
This has one of the best trailers I've ever seen, certainly the best book trailer:
Not part of the book at all but definitely goes along with it: http://molitorious.blogspot.com/2009/06/zombie-trek.html
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Spooky Little Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Poor Lucy Fisher. Just when she thinks she can go home and relax from a crummy vacation, she finds all her belongings tossed out onto the lawn of the house she shares with her fiance, and to top that off, she then loses her job. The last thing she needs is to be hit by a bus and left to be scraped up by an over-sized spatula (I don't envy whoever has to do that!).
After a slow build-up, the book finally came alive (so to speak) for me at the half-way point, along with the help of her grandmother, Naunie. Told in third-person, Lucy is a slightly flaky, but completely sympathetic character who goes through many moods as she deals with her death and how to become a proper ghost. Along with other clever touches, the idea of having untimely deaths go to a ghost school before arriving in "The State" is utterly fantastic. I wouldn't mind seeing that more fleshed out for another book, although I don't know how that would work. Lucy is helped in her haunting assignment by Naunie, whose exploits in "The State" are hilarious and she really livens up the book and provides many laughs. All the other characters add to the book without either being unnecessary or overused. Also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Tulip, Lucy's dog before her death, who is the most adorable and sweetest thing ever. No, there aren't really any surprises plot-wise, but it's the journey that matters, and I enjoyed it.
So, even though it started slow, SPOOKY LITTLE GIRL picked up pace and ended up being a cute, funny, charming, thoughtful, and heartwarming little book. I'm glad I got a chance to read this and learn about how this book came to be in the author's note at the end.
After a slow build-up, the book finally came alive (so to speak) for me at the half-way point, along with the help of her grandmother, Naunie. Told in third-person, Lucy is a slightly flaky, but completely sympathetic character who goes through many moods as she deals with her death and how to become a proper ghost. Along with other clever touches, the idea of having untimely deaths go to a ghost school before arriving in "The State" is utterly fantastic. I wouldn't mind seeing that more fleshed out for another book, although I don't know how that would work. Lucy is helped in her haunting assignment by Naunie, whose exploits in "The State" are hilarious and she really livens up the book and provides many laughs. All the other characters add to the book without either being unnecessary or overused. Also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Tulip, Lucy's dog before her death, who is the most adorable and sweetest thing ever. No, there aren't really any surprises plot-wise, but it's the journey that matters, and I enjoyed it.
So, even though it started slow, SPOOKY LITTLE GIRL picked up pace and ended up being a cute, funny, charming, thoughtful, and heartwarming little book. I'm glad I got a chance to read this and learn about how this book came to be in the author's note at the end.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated A Dance Through Time (MacLeod, #1; de Piaget/MacLeod, #2) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
At first, I thought Elizabeth and Jamie were a couple of nitwits. I couldn't understand why she wanted to stay and why he didn't want her to leave since they didn't even know each other or spend much time together at that time. Nevertheless, after that, they started to endear themselves to me, as did the secondary characters. I found it to be unputdownable and a very fun (and funny) adventure! I'm not sure if this is a keeper or not, but I think it'll stay on my shelf for a little while yet. This has fueled me to read more of this series! I can't wait!
Here are a couple mistakes I noticed, and for me to spot them, that's saying a lot! :P By the way, this is all in good fun.
1. If Elizabeth was born in 1970 and the year is (when she left) 1996, that makes her 26 or possibly 25, but it says repeatedly in the book that she is 24. I can't believe Lynn Kurland (or the editors) could have missed that, it seemed glaringly obvious to me. Of course, for some reason, I have a thing with ages of people in books. It drives me crazy when there are inconsistencies! LoL
2. I think Ms. Kurland got confused on whose eye color is whose a few times. Elizabeth was buying an aquamarine so that it would match Jamie's eyes. It is specifically said that his eyes are a pine green and hers are more aquamarine colored. And Jamie said that she was just buying it to match his eyes, too. Around that area, I think, was where all the confusion lay.
That's all that I found. :)
Here are a couple mistakes I noticed, and for me to spot them, that's saying a lot! :P By the way, this is all in good fun.
1. If Elizabeth was born in 1970 and the year is (when she left) 1996, that makes her 26 or possibly 25, but it says repeatedly in the book that she is 24. I can't believe Lynn Kurland (or the editors) could have missed that, it seemed glaringly obvious to me. Of course, for some reason, I have a thing with ages of people in books. It drives me crazy when there are inconsistencies! LoL
2. I think Ms. Kurland got confused on whose eye color is whose a few times. Elizabeth was buying an aquamarine so that it would match Jamie's eyes. It is specifically said that his eyes are a pine green and hers are more aquamarine colored. And Jamie said that she was just buying it to match his eyes, too. Around that area, I think, was where all the confusion lay.
That's all that I found. :)