Search
Search results
TravelersWife4Life (31 KP) rated Star of Persia: Esther's Story in Books
Feb 24, 2021
I love the story of Esther!
This was my first time reading a book by Jill Eileen Smith and I truly liked it. I usually tend to stay away from Biblical fiction, as I want to remember the story as it happens in the Bible. However, I may revisit my stance on that after reading this wonderful retelling of Esther in the Star of Persia. I believe that Jill Eileen Smith helped me see Esther’s story from a completely new perspective that only added to my knowledge of the original Biblical story.
The whole book was liking being inside Esther’s head and seeing what she would have been going through during the virgin selection prosses, through her reign as Queen of Persia. This book also helped give words to the emotions Esther would have been experiencing as she was being taken away from her family, thrown into a completely new world, and knowing that she risked everything for the lives of her people. This book gave me a new respect for Esther and helped me to understand the enormity of what Esther did for the Jewish people. I think that the Star of Persia added to my understanding of that period and showed how amazingly God used an orphan to achieve great things for His people.
I loved the historical accuracy of this book as well. If you read the authors' note at the end of the book, Jill Eileen Smith explains some of the different variants, both Biblical and secular, about the story of Esther. An awesome fountain of facts! It helped me understand more of the intricacies of the Biblical story from a historical standpoint.
I give this book 5 out of 5 stars for the creative insights to the life and times of Esther, for giving me a better connection to the Biblical story, and for the great historical detail that went into making this book so accurate. I highly recommend reading this book.
*I volunteered to read this book in return for my honest feedback. The thoughts and opinions expressed within are my own.
This was my first time reading a book by Jill Eileen Smith and I truly liked it. I usually tend to stay away from Biblical fiction, as I want to remember the story as it happens in the Bible. However, I may revisit my stance on that after reading this wonderful retelling of Esther in the Star of Persia. I believe that Jill Eileen Smith helped me see Esther’s story from a completely new perspective that only added to my knowledge of the original Biblical story.
The whole book was liking being inside Esther’s head and seeing what she would have been going through during the virgin selection prosses, through her reign as Queen of Persia. This book also helped give words to the emotions Esther would have been experiencing as she was being taken away from her family, thrown into a completely new world, and knowing that she risked everything for the lives of her people. This book gave me a new respect for Esther and helped me to understand the enormity of what Esther did for the Jewish people. I think that the Star of Persia added to my understanding of that period and showed how amazingly God used an orphan to achieve great things for His people.
I loved the historical accuracy of this book as well. If you read the authors' note at the end of the book, Jill Eileen Smith explains some of the different variants, both Biblical and secular, about the story of Esther. An awesome fountain of facts! It helped me understand more of the intricacies of the Biblical story from a historical standpoint.
I give this book 5 out of 5 stars for the creative insights to the life and times of Esther, for giving me a better connection to the Biblical story, and for the great historical detail that went into making this book so accurate. I highly recommend reading this book.
*I volunteered to read this book in return for my honest feedback. The thoughts and opinions expressed within are my own.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Monster Hunter (2020) in Movies
Feb 24, 2021
Absolutely Disastrous
Monster Hunter is the 15th feature film directed by Paul WS Anderson and is based on a popular gaming franchise of the same name. This is not Anderson’s first attempt at a video game movie, as he is arguably best known for giving us the Resident Evil movie series and the 1995 version of Mortal Kombat.
As is the case with the examples above, this film is in no way faithful to the source material. I am not a huge fan of the Monster Hunter games but I have played enough of them to know that they are nothing like what we get in this generic action movie filled to the brim with clichés. Frankly, this movie runs the gamut of mid 2000’s mediocre action film clichés like it is following a formula from a textbook.
When reviewing any movie, – even one as trashy as this, – I always try to find some positives before tearing through the poor elements, but I am genuinely struggling to find anything here that didn’t annoy me or make me cringe. Even the one thing that you would think would be a positive, – the fact that the movie’s runtime is only 103 minutes long, – still isn’t a positive because the film still manages to feel so long and dragged out.
Anderson is a decent director, I know this from Event Horizon and the first Resident Evil film, but at this point in his career it genuinely seems like he isn’t even trying anymore. I’m honestly convinced at this point that the guy just looks at the box art for whatever video game series he is adapting and decides that is all of the research that he has to do.
The technical aspects of this movie are garbage. The editing is abrupt and extremely cheesy with no flow or cohesion, just a ton of hard crash zooms and awkward transitions. The score sounds like royalty free suspense stock music that a freelancer might download for background music for a low budget Youtube video.
Read the rest of my review at: https://www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com/2021/02/18/review-monster-hunter-movie/
As is the case with the examples above, this film is in no way faithful to the source material. I am not a huge fan of the Monster Hunter games but I have played enough of them to know that they are nothing like what we get in this generic action movie filled to the brim with clichés. Frankly, this movie runs the gamut of mid 2000’s mediocre action film clichés like it is following a formula from a textbook.
When reviewing any movie, – even one as trashy as this, – I always try to find some positives before tearing through the poor elements, but I am genuinely struggling to find anything here that didn’t annoy me or make me cringe. Even the one thing that you would think would be a positive, – the fact that the movie’s runtime is only 103 minutes long, – still isn’t a positive because the film still manages to feel so long and dragged out.
Anderson is a decent director, I know this from Event Horizon and the first Resident Evil film, but at this point in his career it genuinely seems like he isn’t even trying anymore. I’m honestly convinced at this point that the guy just looks at the box art for whatever video game series he is adapting and decides that is all of the research that he has to do.
The technical aspects of this movie are garbage. The editing is abrupt and extremely cheesy with no flow or cohesion, just a ton of hard crash zooms and awkward transitions. The score sounds like royalty free suspense stock music that a freelancer might download for background music for a low budget Youtube video.
Read the rest of my review at: https://www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com/2021/02/18/review-monster-hunter-movie/
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Girl On The Third Floor (2019) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Girl on the third floor is a slow paced film about a man, Don Koch who is renovating a rundown house. Of course there is something strange going on.
The film has Amityville vibes, with leaking plug sockets and bleeding walls but also vibes with Fatal Attraction, it's true that there are strange things about the house but it doesn't necessarily mean it's haunted, right, and, this way the film does leave you wondering what is happening. At least for a short while.
Like a lot of haunted house movies, Girl on the third floor, starts slow, there are weird stains and sounds, the dog barks at nothing and marbles roll around. Occasionally you can catch a glimpse of something in a mirror or something moves in the back ground but these are all well used tropes and the film plays on a lot of familiar tropes. This doesn't mean that it is a bad film but I found myself trying to work out where certain characters fitted in.
One thing 'Girl on the third floor' does do well is only feed you the information you need, giving you a chance to work out what is happening before it puts most of the peace's together because there is one character I'm not sure about and one thing about the ending that I'm... Well I'm not going to spoil that but, if they did what I think they did then it's been done better.
I did see reviews saying that 'Girl on the third floor' was one of the films that is so disturbing that you watch it to the end but I didn't find that true. True it is atmospheric and there are a couple of scenes that are a bit gross and a couple of the themes push things a bit but they are only briefly mentioned or cut away from. Maybe I've just seen too many horrors but it was well watchable, I think something like 'Hereditary' was much more disturbing.
Girl on the third floor is a good film but I found that it had all been done before, nether the less it is probably above average.
The film has Amityville vibes, with leaking plug sockets and bleeding walls but also vibes with Fatal Attraction, it's true that there are strange things about the house but it doesn't necessarily mean it's haunted, right, and, this way the film does leave you wondering what is happening. At least for a short while.
Like a lot of haunted house movies, Girl on the third floor, starts slow, there are weird stains and sounds, the dog barks at nothing and marbles roll around. Occasionally you can catch a glimpse of something in a mirror or something moves in the back ground but these are all well used tropes and the film plays on a lot of familiar tropes. This doesn't mean that it is a bad film but I found myself trying to work out where certain characters fitted in.
One thing 'Girl on the third floor' does do well is only feed you the information you need, giving you a chance to work out what is happening before it puts most of the peace's together because there is one character I'm not sure about and one thing about the ending that I'm... Well I'm not going to spoil that but, if they did what I think they did then it's been done better.
I did see reviews saying that 'Girl on the third floor' was one of the films that is so disturbing that you watch it to the end but I didn't find that true. True it is atmospheric and there are a couple of scenes that are a bit gross and a couple of the themes push things a bit but they are only briefly mentioned or cut away from. Maybe I've just seen too many horrors but it was well watchable, I think something like 'Hereditary' was much more disturbing.
Girl on the third floor is a good film but I found that it had all been done before, nether the less it is probably above average.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Howling II: Your Sister Is a Werewolf (1985) in Movies
Nov 6, 2020
One of my favourite parts is the bit where the creepy dude looks straight into the camera and say "Schnitzeeeel".
Honestly not sure if Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf (Stirba, Werewolf Bitch in some corners of the world) is a 5 star film, or a 1 star film.
I always have time for Christopher Lee, and here is no different, and Sybil Danning is a bonafide B-Movie icon, but everyone else is hamming it up to the max (not necessarily in a good way), spouting the terrible screenplay and making silly growling noises constantly.
The werewolf costumes look terrible (a bit of googling told me that the production was sent monkey suits by mistake, and they just had to roll with it) and the movie constantly attempts to force it's theme tune down your throat - I lost count of how many times it plays throughout the runtime, but it starts off well enough, but by the end of the film it's grating as fuck.
It's certainly a far cry from the genuinely good first movie but for all it's faults, I actually really enjoyed it.
The last review I wrote on here was for Species IV, where I commented on how it was so awful, and had no charm to it at all, which was in stark contrast to a lot of bad horror movies, especially a bunch from the 80s. Howling II is one of those movies.
It rarely gets boring, it's has some decent practical gore effects, and the terrible script is often so ludicrous, it ends up being unintentional comedy gold.
Not to mention that it's has the most unnecessarily gratuitous end credits roll I've ever seen - in fact, if you can't be bothered to watch the whole thing, just find the end credits and you'll get the vibe of this whole glorious mess of a film.
So yeah, is it a 1 star movie or 5 star movie? I still don't know but I know I low key love it, so 2 and a half stars with a love heart seems fair. I'd definitely recommend giving it a watch though, just to experience the sheer cheesy absurdity.
Honestly not sure if Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf (Stirba, Werewolf Bitch in some corners of the world) is a 5 star film, or a 1 star film.
I always have time for Christopher Lee, and here is no different, and Sybil Danning is a bonafide B-Movie icon, but everyone else is hamming it up to the max (not necessarily in a good way), spouting the terrible screenplay and making silly growling noises constantly.
The werewolf costumes look terrible (a bit of googling told me that the production was sent monkey suits by mistake, and they just had to roll with it) and the movie constantly attempts to force it's theme tune down your throat - I lost count of how many times it plays throughout the runtime, but it starts off well enough, but by the end of the film it's grating as fuck.
It's certainly a far cry from the genuinely good first movie but for all it's faults, I actually really enjoyed it.
The last review I wrote on here was for Species IV, where I commented on how it was so awful, and had no charm to it at all, which was in stark contrast to a lot of bad horror movies, especially a bunch from the 80s. Howling II is one of those movies.
It rarely gets boring, it's has some decent practical gore effects, and the terrible script is often so ludicrous, it ends up being unintentional comedy gold.
Not to mention that it's has the most unnecessarily gratuitous end credits roll I've ever seen - in fact, if you can't be bothered to watch the whole thing, just find the end credits and you'll get the vibe of this whole glorious mess of a film.
So yeah, is it a 1 star movie or 5 star movie? I still don't know but I know I low key love it, so 2 and a half stars with a love heart seems fair. I'd definitely recommend giving it a watch though, just to experience the sheer cheesy absurdity.
Bill Nighy recommended Performance (1970) in Movies (curated)
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Dirty John in TV
Apr 4, 2021 (Updated Apr 4, 2021)
The creepiness factor is high AF (2 more)
Believable
Accurate
The actual people (3 more)
Painful to watch
OMG, what's with her accent?
Long and drawn out.
I hate giving the show the low rating but it wasn't an enjoyable show. It's difficult to judge something that is literally a reenactment of real people's dramatic events but that's why we are here.
Connie Britton's character was just so submissive and deluded that it was painful to watch. I wanted to see her make different choices and grow a backbone but she was literally playing the woman that this happened to so for what it's worth, she did her job well. Jean Smart played Connie Britton's character's mother very well. The woman who played the daughter was annoying and had a really annoying voice. Again, this is based on real people and very accurate. The people are from Orange County, CA, USA, which might as well be in a different universe than most of us. So what seems bratty and whatever to us is just normal and how it is there. Eric Bana was very creepy. I don't see how the main character could have fallen for a sketchy character like the one he was playing, but again, different life choices. You want to feel sorry for the female characters in this series but seeing the mom basically choosing to be victimized is frustrating and the daughter is just awful. The victim's mom's psychology is bizarre and how she feeds her own daughter's psychology is messed up. I don't get it. It makes me so uncomfortable. Just thinking about it while I'm typing this is making me cringe.
The series is very long and drawn out. I think they could have told the same story in less than half the time with an even greater impact because we wouldn't have as much time to be bored or to hate the characters we're supposed to be rooting for.
If you want to know the story, listen to the podcast by the same name or go down an internet rabbit hole and discover message boards, photos, videos, articles, etc., about the case. But unless you're a masochist with way too much time on your hands, avoid this series.
Connie Britton's character was just so submissive and deluded that it was painful to watch. I wanted to see her make different choices and grow a backbone but she was literally playing the woman that this happened to so for what it's worth, she did her job well. Jean Smart played Connie Britton's character's mother very well. The woman who played the daughter was annoying and had a really annoying voice. Again, this is based on real people and very accurate. The people are from Orange County, CA, USA, which might as well be in a different universe than most of us. So what seems bratty and whatever to us is just normal and how it is there. Eric Bana was very creepy. I don't see how the main character could have fallen for a sketchy character like the one he was playing, but again, different life choices. You want to feel sorry for the female characters in this series but seeing the mom basically choosing to be victimized is frustrating and the daughter is just awful. The victim's mom's psychology is bizarre and how she feeds her own daughter's psychology is messed up. I don't get it. It makes me so uncomfortable. Just thinking about it while I'm typing this is making me cringe.
The series is very long and drawn out. I think they could have told the same story in less than half the time with an even greater impact because we wouldn't have as much time to be bored or to hate the characters we're supposed to be rooting for.
If you want to know the story, listen to the podcast by the same name or go down an internet rabbit hole and discover message boards, photos, videos, articles, etc., about the case. But unless you're a masochist with way too much time on your hands, avoid this series.
Beth Ditto recommended Singles Going Steady by Buzzcocks in Music (curated)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Bad Habits in Books
Feb 18, 2021
Claire "Mac" Woods is now a well-respected professor in academia--making her the person she's always dreamed of becoming. But ten years ago, she was just Mac. A poor student at university: part of The Project, with her best friend Gwen Whitney. When Gwen moved to Mac's hometown, her life changed. Through the lens of Gwen's wealthy life, Mac saw another future for herself than one with an addict mom; a sick sister; and a deadbeat dad. But while part of The Project, Gwen and Mac are sucked into the power dynamics of a married professor couple, with disastrous consequences. Meeting by accident a decade later, the two are hashing things out--but will uncovering long buried secrets do anyone any good?
This was a well-done and suspenseful book, but it took me a while to get into it for some reason. Mostly by design, the characters are incredibly unlikable and nearly impossible to feel any attachment for. Even Mac, our supposed protagonist, has her irritating and questionable moments. I think of this book as dark and twisted people doing dark and twisted things. But, there's some delight in that, sometimes, right? Because Gentry gives us really twisted people and what happens can be really dark.
If you're someone who came up in academia, this book will really hit home, as most of our characters' motivations center around getting ahead in that world. Mac envies Gwen and her "easy" life more than anything. And the two professors? Well, I'm not sure I can even *explain* them without giving away any spoilers. Let's just say it's a cutthroat world out there.
There are certainly some twists here--more at the end, where things pick up. There's an "event" that we know happened, and we don't really find out what transpired until near the book's conclusions. At times this is suspenseful; at others, frustrating. Is the power grab that's happening really worth it all? Only our characters can truly say, I suppose.
Overall, this a dark and sometimes slow-moving novel, but it has its share of surprises. It will be especially intriguing if you love academia-themed novels and power-grabbing characters. 3 stars.
This was a well-done and suspenseful book, but it took me a while to get into it for some reason. Mostly by design, the characters are incredibly unlikable and nearly impossible to feel any attachment for. Even Mac, our supposed protagonist, has her irritating and questionable moments. I think of this book as dark and twisted people doing dark and twisted things. But, there's some delight in that, sometimes, right? Because Gentry gives us really twisted people and what happens can be really dark.
If you're someone who came up in academia, this book will really hit home, as most of our characters' motivations center around getting ahead in that world. Mac envies Gwen and her "easy" life more than anything. And the two professors? Well, I'm not sure I can even *explain* them without giving away any spoilers. Let's just say it's a cutthroat world out there.
There are certainly some twists here--more at the end, where things pick up. There's an "event" that we know happened, and we don't really find out what transpired until near the book's conclusions. At times this is suspenseful; at others, frustrating. Is the power grab that's happening really worth it all? Only our characters can truly say, I suppose.
Overall, this a dark and sometimes slow-moving novel, but it has its share of surprises. It will be especially intriguing if you love academia-themed novels and power-grabbing characters. 3 stars.
Erika (17789 KP) rated Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway (2021) in Movies
Jun 15, 2021
Full disclosure, I absolutely loved the first Peter Rabbit film. I found it completely hilarious and cackled numerous times. The sequel did not make me laugh.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
Laura Doe (1350 KP) rated I Couldn't Love You More in Books
Jul 1, 2021
A very confusing book. Timelines all over the place and changing between there different characters meant that I spent most of the first half of the book confused about what was happening and how old certain characters were at that point in the story.
The story follows three women Aoife, Rosaleen and Kate, who are three generations of the same family. Throughout the book Aoife is wondering where her daughter has gone as she seems to have vanished without a trace after coming home one Christmas and then never to be heard from again. Rosaleen has her own secret, that she is pregnant with a married man’s baby and finds herself going to a convent to have her baby, and this book sheds some light on the horrors that unmarried mothers had to suffer before and after giving birth and having their babies taken from them. Kate was adopted and is trying to find out information about her birth mother whilst also trying to cope with her husband who spends most of his time “with the band” and coming back drunk most nights.
The story was an interesting look at how the Catholic Church dealt with expectant mothers who weren’t married, and although you’d think going to a convent for help they would be well looked after, it didn’t work out that way at all. But I did find that it was unnecessarily confusing and jumped around with the timelines quite a lot.
I found myself not wanting to sit down and carry on with the book, but I did persevere with it because I wanted to know how it turned out. The writing was beautiful and some of the descriptions really did make you feel like you were there. The ending seemed quite rushed and after 95% of the book being emotional and there not seeming like there would be a happy ending, the last few pages of the book seemed to solve everything quickly. It would have been nice to have a few more pages around that and questions answered around whether Aoife ever found out what happened to her daughter.
Thank you to Esther and Pigeonhole for allowing me to read this book in return for an honest review.
The story follows three women Aoife, Rosaleen and Kate, who are three generations of the same family. Throughout the book Aoife is wondering where her daughter has gone as she seems to have vanished without a trace after coming home one Christmas and then never to be heard from again. Rosaleen has her own secret, that she is pregnant with a married man’s baby and finds herself going to a convent to have her baby, and this book sheds some light on the horrors that unmarried mothers had to suffer before and after giving birth and having their babies taken from them. Kate was adopted and is trying to find out information about her birth mother whilst also trying to cope with her husband who spends most of his time “with the band” and coming back drunk most nights.
The story was an interesting look at how the Catholic Church dealt with expectant mothers who weren’t married, and although you’d think going to a convent for help they would be well looked after, it didn’t work out that way at all. But I did find that it was unnecessarily confusing and jumped around with the timelines quite a lot.
I found myself not wanting to sit down and carry on with the book, but I did persevere with it because I wanted to know how it turned out. The writing was beautiful and some of the descriptions really did make you feel like you were there. The ending seemed quite rushed and after 95% of the book being emotional and there not seeming like there would be a happy ending, the last few pages of the book seemed to solve everything quickly. It would have been nice to have a few more pages around that and questions answered around whether Aoife ever found out what happened to her daughter.
Thank you to Esther and Pigeonhole for allowing me to read this book in return for an honest review.