Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Isle (2018) in Movies
Oct 12, 2019
Not much happens
Three men survived the destruction of their sailing ship in 19th century Scotland only to find themselves in the middle of the ocean with no where to go. Alas, they discover a small island with the mist of the open sea and decide to try for it. The make it ashore and are relived to be on dry land. The island does have a few residents one of which comes to greet their weary bodies and welcome them to his home.
After drying off, resting and tending to their injuries, the men are eager to return to the mainland which they query their new acquaintance about. He dodges the question several times making mention of other inhabitants of the island. The men decide to explore on their own since their new friend. Additional residents are found, some nice some aloof and maybe not so eager for conversation.
Eventually it is discovered the island has an unsettling curse upon it whereas men are lured to their deaths by the female natives due to an event which happened years earlier involving another female island resident now deceased. The surviving men now have to figure out how to leave The Isle without succumbing to its evil vices.
The best thing The Isle has going for it is the beautiful Scottish countryside, forested landscapes and gorgeous ocean views. At first, you may feel like you are watching a period Scottish episode of Lost or the recent film The Witch when you hear the Sottish accent dialogue; however, this film doesn't have the depth or screenplay of either of these. I read online the script for this film took years to complete, which is unfortunate since not much happens for the first two thirds of screen time. Once on the island, the three ship survivors mostly lounge around getting spooked by the natives and not much else.
Once the "curse" has been revealed the film picks up a bit and the 3rd act is mildly interesting; however, I was out of it by then. The resolution is interesting and entertaining, and saves the film somewhat. I just wish the set up would have been more exciting.
The film was definitely very low budget, which doesn't bother me if still done well. Sometimes, really great films can come with diminutive price tags. That just usually means filmmakers have to be more creative with what they spend their money on and make sure each dollar counts.
In the end, I was left wanting more and was disappointed.
After drying off, resting and tending to their injuries, the men are eager to return to the mainland which they query their new acquaintance about. He dodges the question several times making mention of other inhabitants of the island. The men decide to explore on their own since their new friend. Additional residents are found, some nice some aloof and maybe not so eager for conversation.
Eventually it is discovered the island has an unsettling curse upon it whereas men are lured to their deaths by the female natives due to an event which happened years earlier involving another female island resident now deceased. The surviving men now have to figure out how to leave The Isle without succumbing to its evil vices.
The best thing The Isle has going for it is the beautiful Scottish countryside, forested landscapes and gorgeous ocean views. At first, you may feel like you are watching a period Scottish episode of Lost or the recent film The Witch when you hear the Sottish accent dialogue; however, this film doesn't have the depth or screenplay of either of these. I read online the script for this film took years to complete, which is unfortunate since not much happens for the first two thirds of screen time. Once on the island, the three ship survivors mostly lounge around getting spooked by the natives and not much else.
Once the "curse" has been revealed the film picks up a bit and the 3rd act is mildly interesting; however, I was out of it by then. The resolution is interesting and entertaining, and saves the film somewhat. I just wish the set up would have been more exciting.
The film was definitely very low budget, which doesn't bother me if still done well. Sometimes, really great films can come with diminutive price tags. That just usually means filmmakers have to be more creative with what they spend their money on and make sure each dollar counts.
In the end, I was left wanting more and was disappointed.
Jamie (131 KP) rated 1984 Nineteen Eighty-Four in Books
Jun 4, 2017
Overwhelmingly bleak (1 more)
Stars slow and a little bit didactic
A true nightmare world, a dystopian classic
Winston is our everyman, a middle aged average male living under the heel of a totalitarian regime. His work is bland, his food is bland, his every day routine is bland. Winston is losing it, he wonders about the world that was before the party and resists in small ways. He ponders about the subtle ways that the party exerts it’s control, by perpetual war, by rewriting history, by lying so blatantly that the members of the party have to accept the lies as truth. Winston dreams of revolution and finds himself seeking out others likes him.
Nineteen Eighty-Four was not an easy ready by any means, it’s startlingly brutal. The beginning starts off rather slow as the readers gets to know Winston, the way he thinks and learns about his every day routine and are introduced to key characters. The middle of the book picks up, but it breaks up the pacing of the novel due to the fact that it essentially turns into an essay that outlines the structure of the party and the moral implications of it’s actions. While info dumps can be a bit disjointing to read, I could bear with it for this novel. The third half of the novel caught me off guard and it spun wildly out of control. I loved it, even when I found it difficult to digest. This is what made the book so brilliant, it doesn’t just tell you about right and wrong and then wrap things up nicely, the horrible reality of the book comes crashing down on both Winston and the reader’s head in full force.
The power structure of the party is just downright diabolical. I could think of any other way to describe it; the method of control, the reasons for maintaining such a strict social order, the sheer scale of the party’s reach – all of it was terrifying when taken as a whole. There were points in the second half of the novel where I had to put the book down because it was stressing me out too much, and this was a first for me. I now understand fully what folks mean when they label something as “Orwellian,” and why this novel is hailed as one of the very best of the dystopia genre. Hell, there are others that I read that I thought were bleak, but none quite to this degree. Nineteen Eighty-Four makes other books in the dystopia genre seem like lighthearted adventures novels.
The novel is extremely effective in the delivery of it’s core message about government control and humanity by creating a potential future that is harrowing, particularly because of it’s plausibility, as a warning to all. This is the type of book that will stick with me for a long time and I’m glad I finally sat down to read it.
Nineteen Eighty-Four was not an easy ready by any means, it’s startlingly brutal. The beginning starts off rather slow as the readers gets to know Winston, the way he thinks and learns about his every day routine and are introduced to key characters. The middle of the book picks up, but it breaks up the pacing of the novel due to the fact that it essentially turns into an essay that outlines the structure of the party and the moral implications of it’s actions. While info dumps can be a bit disjointing to read, I could bear with it for this novel. The third half of the novel caught me off guard and it spun wildly out of control. I loved it, even when I found it difficult to digest. This is what made the book so brilliant, it doesn’t just tell you about right and wrong and then wrap things up nicely, the horrible reality of the book comes crashing down on both Winston and the reader’s head in full force.
The power structure of the party is just downright diabolical. I could think of any other way to describe it; the method of control, the reasons for maintaining such a strict social order, the sheer scale of the party’s reach – all of it was terrifying when taken as a whole. There were points in the second half of the novel where I had to put the book down because it was stressing me out too much, and this was a first for me. I now understand fully what folks mean when they label something as “Orwellian,” and why this novel is hailed as one of the very best of the dystopia genre. Hell, there are others that I read that I thought were bleak, but none quite to this degree. Nineteen Eighty-Four makes other books in the dystopia genre seem like lighthearted adventures novels.
The novel is extremely effective in the delivery of it’s core message about government control and humanity by creating a potential future that is harrowing, particularly because of it’s plausibility, as a warning to all. This is the type of book that will stick with me for a long time and I’m glad I finally sat down to read it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Sinister (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Sinister is a movie that surprised me. I love scary movies, but most of the time it is the pure humor that I find in what people think is scary these days that makes me love them. I figured I would walk into this movie and leave in the same mood I always do. Laughing about how many people jumped in the theater because of what happened on screen. But, this time, I was one of those people. For the first time in over a decade I found a scary movie that downright creeped me out and made me jump. Not just once, more several times.
Sinister opens with old super-8 footage of a family of four being hung from a tree in a rather unique way. The movie is set in a small town in Pennsylvania where Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke; Training Day, Daybreakers) and his family (wife, daughter and son) are moving into a new house. Ellison is a true-crime writer, who hasn’t had a best-selling book in 10 years. His work in the true-crime field did not garner him any favor with the local law enforcement, and the Sheriff in particular would rather see him leave. Shortly, we realize that the house the Oswalt family has moved into the same house that the family in the opening scene lived in, this family is the basis for the book he is writing, and the house is also where they were murdered. This is unbeknownst to the family, except for Ellison himself.
Ellison finds a box in the addicts that is labeled home movies, and it contains several reels of super-8 footage. This footage helps him realize how and why the family from the opening scene were murdered, and their murders spanning from the late 60s to present day. Even more daunting, his discoveries as he moves forward in his investigation place his entire family in the path of a supernatural entity.
I am a firm believer that a film’s score can make or break a movie, despite how good the story is. Sinister did not fail in this department. With haunting melodies littered throughout the movie, and excellent timing by all punctuations, this film will definitely have you tense at exactly the right moments. The one bad thing I can say about this movie, and it was really more of a distraction than a bad thing, was Ethan Hawke’s voice. His voice seemed unnaturally deep compared to my experience with him in his previous roles, a thought which was echoed by many of my fellow critics in the theater. Overall, though, the movie was fantastic. With two interesting cameos in the movie, and a great little role for James Ransone (Inside Man, The Next Three Days), a relative known, and stellar acting from Ethan Hawke, this is a definite must see. Especially for date night, if you’re significant other is into scary movies that is.
Sinister opens with old super-8 footage of a family of four being hung from a tree in a rather unique way. The movie is set in a small town in Pennsylvania where Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke; Training Day, Daybreakers) and his family (wife, daughter and son) are moving into a new house. Ellison is a true-crime writer, who hasn’t had a best-selling book in 10 years. His work in the true-crime field did not garner him any favor with the local law enforcement, and the Sheriff in particular would rather see him leave. Shortly, we realize that the house the Oswalt family has moved into the same house that the family in the opening scene lived in, this family is the basis for the book he is writing, and the house is also where they were murdered. This is unbeknownst to the family, except for Ellison himself.
Ellison finds a box in the addicts that is labeled home movies, and it contains several reels of super-8 footage. This footage helps him realize how and why the family from the opening scene were murdered, and their murders spanning from the late 60s to present day. Even more daunting, his discoveries as he moves forward in his investigation place his entire family in the path of a supernatural entity.
I am a firm believer that a film’s score can make or break a movie, despite how good the story is. Sinister did not fail in this department. With haunting melodies littered throughout the movie, and excellent timing by all punctuations, this film will definitely have you tense at exactly the right moments. The one bad thing I can say about this movie, and it was really more of a distraction than a bad thing, was Ethan Hawke’s voice. His voice seemed unnaturally deep compared to my experience with him in his previous roles, a thought which was echoed by many of my fellow critics in the theater. Overall, though, the movie was fantastic. With two interesting cameos in the movie, and a great little role for James Ransone (Inside Man, The Next Three Days), a relative known, and stellar acting from Ethan Hawke, this is a definite must see. Especially for date night, if you’re significant other is into scary movies that is.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 18, 2020
A Winning (enough) combination
I'm a sucker for Sherlock Holmes. I grew up watching the fantastic black and white Holmes films from the 1940's starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. I checked out '70's Holmes flicks like MURDER BY DECREE and the 7 PERCENT SOLUTION and then re-fell-in-love with Holmes with the Jeremy Brett BBC SHERLOCK HOLMES TV series of the 1980's and, of course, Benedict Cumberbatch's modern take on the master sleuth in the 2000's was "must see TV" for me. I was even on-board with Robert Downey Jr's. "take" on this iconic sleuth and was thrilled when Sir Ian McKellen portrayed an elderly Sherlock Holmes in MR. HOLMES.
So...I eagerly awaited the Netflix treatment of the "younger" sister of Sherlock Holmes in ENOLA HOLMES -and, I gotta say, I wasn't disappointed.
Based on the Young Adult series of novels by Nancy Springer, ENOLA HOLMES introduces us to the (heretofore unknown) younger sister of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes. Raised by a fiercely independent mother in the late 1880's, Enola goes searching for her when she goes missing and gets mixed up in the "The Case of the Missing Marquess" along the way.
Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS) is a winning, charismatic (enough) performer as Enola. She is a steady and sure hand at the helm of this ship throughout the course of this 2 hour and 3 minute adventure. While I would have liked her to command the screen more with her presence, she does enough to make it a good, solid, effort.
The supporting cast is just as good. Helena Bonham Carter (FIGHT CLUB) is perfectly cast as Enola's (and Sherlock's and Mycroft's) mother - she has that fierce streak of independence and "don't mess with me" energy while carving her own path. She is the type of character that one would go looking for if she went missing. Sam Claflin (HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE) is finely unrecognizable (at least to me) as Mycroft - written in this piece as the more "traditional" of the Holmes family and Henry Cavill (MAN OF STEEL) brings a strong arrogance to his portrayal of Sherlock. He also brings something else - heart - to this character, a character trait that has "traditional" fans of this character up in arms. For me, it works well in the context of this film.
As for the film itself - it is good (enough). I found myself enjoying the mystery and the characters and enjoyed my time in this world. It's not anything new, but it's like putting on a pair of old shoes - comforting to wear.
This is an adaptation of the first book of the series, and I, for one, hope that there are more. It's a winning combination that was pleasant to watch.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...I eagerly awaited the Netflix treatment of the "younger" sister of Sherlock Holmes in ENOLA HOLMES -and, I gotta say, I wasn't disappointed.
Based on the Young Adult series of novels by Nancy Springer, ENOLA HOLMES introduces us to the (heretofore unknown) younger sister of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes. Raised by a fiercely independent mother in the late 1880's, Enola goes searching for her when she goes missing and gets mixed up in the "The Case of the Missing Marquess" along the way.
Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS) is a winning, charismatic (enough) performer as Enola. She is a steady and sure hand at the helm of this ship throughout the course of this 2 hour and 3 minute adventure. While I would have liked her to command the screen more with her presence, she does enough to make it a good, solid, effort.
The supporting cast is just as good. Helena Bonham Carter (FIGHT CLUB) is perfectly cast as Enola's (and Sherlock's and Mycroft's) mother - she has that fierce streak of independence and "don't mess with me" energy while carving her own path. She is the type of character that one would go looking for if she went missing. Sam Claflin (HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE) is finely unrecognizable (at least to me) as Mycroft - written in this piece as the more "traditional" of the Holmes family and Henry Cavill (MAN OF STEEL) brings a strong arrogance to his portrayal of Sherlock. He also brings something else - heart - to this character, a character trait that has "traditional" fans of this character up in arms. For me, it works well in the context of this film.
As for the film itself - it is good (enough). I found myself enjoying the mystery and the characters and enjoyed my time in this world. It's not anything new, but it's like putting on a pair of old shoes - comforting to wear.
This is an adaptation of the first book of the series, and I, for one, hope that there are more. It's a winning combination that was pleasant to watch.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Wonder in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-46.png"/>;
Wonder is the first book since The Notebook to make me cry to sleep. So sad, emotional and powerful, this is a book everyone needs to be aware of.
August is a young boy that has a health condition, which is why his face looks different than other people's faces. But he is just as normal and ordinary as any other kid.
When his parents decide it is time for him to go to school instead of being home-schooled, he is afraid. Because children are honest, and sometimes unintentionally mean,
<b><i>"When given the choice between being right or being kind, choose kind."</i></b>
During this book, we see August's point of view, his daily life and making friends with Jack and Summer. We also get to meet some not as nice kids, being mean to August. However, we see the story from other people's point of view, which I found quite interesting. Via'a point of view, for example, was quite insightful.
<b><i>Being August's sister is not easy.</i></b>
Especially when dealing with other high-school drama too. Via is in a situation where her relationship with her parents is suffering because of the attention they pay at August. And even though we can clearly see her endless love for him and her mindfulness of priority, we can also notice her need for attention and love as well.
We also see the point of views of his friends Jack and Summer, as well as Via's ex best-friend. These are all people that August has an impact on, and we can clearly see how they care about him, and how they are battling the society together with him as well. Through August's friendships, we learn so much about the type of person August is, what he is going through on a daily basis, and also, what kind of people his friends are, and what they are prepared to do for him.
<b><i>The inspiring thing about this book is August.</i></b>
For how he helps the people around him to be better versions of themselves. His resilience and positivity, despite the hard life he is currently having and knows he'll have for the rest of his life. August is so precious and innocent, and the moment the other children start to realise this as well is so emotional and magical.
Wonder by R.J. Palacio is just a book that is here to remind us to be kind and to be humble. A book I highly recommend to everyone. I also recommend the movie as well, but only after you have read the book.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-46.png"/>;
Wonder is the first book since The Notebook to make me cry to sleep. So sad, emotional and powerful, this is a book everyone needs to be aware of.
August is a young boy that has a health condition, which is why his face looks different than other people's faces. But he is just as normal and ordinary as any other kid.
When his parents decide it is time for him to go to school instead of being home-schooled, he is afraid. Because children are honest, and sometimes unintentionally mean,
<b><i>"When given the choice between being right or being kind, choose kind."</i></b>
During this book, we see August's point of view, his daily life and making friends with Jack and Summer. We also get to meet some not as nice kids, being mean to August. However, we see the story from other people's point of view, which I found quite interesting. Via'a point of view, for example, was quite insightful.
<b><i>Being August's sister is not easy.</i></b>
Especially when dealing with other high-school drama too. Via is in a situation where her relationship with her parents is suffering because of the attention they pay at August. And even though we can clearly see her endless love for him and her mindfulness of priority, we can also notice her need for attention and love as well.
We also see the point of views of his friends Jack and Summer, as well as Via's ex best-friend. These are all people that August has an impact on, and we can clearly see how they care about him, and how they are battling the society together with him as well. Through August's friendships, we learn so much about the type of person August is, what he is going through on a daily basis, and also, what kind of people his friends are, and what they are prepared to do for him.
<b><i>The inspiring thing about this book is August.</i></b>
For how he helps the people around him to be better versions of themselves. His resilience and positivity, despite the hard life he is currently having and knows he'll have for the rest of his life. August is so precious and innocent, and the moment the other children start to realise this as well is so emotional and magical.
Wonder by R.J. Palacio is just a book that is here to remind us to be kind and to be humble. A book I highly recommend to everyone. I also recommend the movie as well, but only after you have read the book.
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated A Short History of the World in Books
Aug 5, 2018
Best known for his classic fiction, HG Wells also wrote a non-fiction book summarising the history of the world, going from the history of the solar system, right up to the date the book was published in 1922.
As I hoped, the book often reads like a novel, with 67 distinct sections, each like a mini story. In order to fit the history of the whole world into one book, by nature the story telling ranges from nice and rapid, to a little too rapid. I found it rather like a catalogue of numerous interesting little nuggets of information. Despite covering events from all over the world, the topics often flow seamlessly from one topic to the next. Due to so many overlapping topics, this history of the world isn't told in a linear purely chronological pattern, but has to go backwards a little, now and again.
At various times throughout, the stories are gripping and Wells successfully brings history to life. I particularly liked the various sections on religious leaders. Appropriately, Wells tackles religion as would any unbiased historian-become storyteller. I also enjoyed the beginning, where Wells paints a crystal clear picture of our solar system and the vast empty space that our dramas are within. His description of our galaxy sounds nothing short of beautiful.
The book was meant to be predominantly factual, but Wells did include a substantial amount of speculation and opinion. This does not distract from the storyline, but adds value in generating the concepts of the time periods.
It covers progress and prosperity as much as carnage and decimation, and provides good explanations of everything it covers. (Although it would benefit from more illustrations). At times it feels detail heavy but also gives the reader a feel for each age - the book is not limited to which country went to war with which country and when, but also examines changes in ways of thinking through the ages. Including the Ancient Greek philosophers, Arabian progress in maths and science, the advent of experimental science, and the development of political and social ideas in Wells’ time.
I was reassured to learn that despite not studying the history of the world in its entirety in school, I was already familiar with much of the book’s content. Having said that, there were also topics where I really felt I was learning something. I read Wells’ opinion on why the Roman Empire fell, and how the industrial revolution was not merely a revolution in machinery, but rather a revolution in how people conducted their everyday lives. There were also some important figures from history described that were never mentioned in my school days, particularly Charlemagne and Roger Bacon.
Towards the end of the book, Wells correctly predicts another war like that of the Great War. However his final message was one of faith and hope in humanity’s progress.
With such a huge scope, Wells must have struggled with deciding what topics to include and what to exclude. I thought he ought to have included a touch more detail on Ancient Egypt, and on the causes of the Great War (World War 1). As a British person myself I would have liked to have seen more on British history.
Likewise, if the book were written now rather than 1922 I began to speculate on what he would and wouldn’t have included. I imagine there would certainly be a section on World War 2, rockets into space, the internet, and 9/11. He would have provided an excellently conducted section on how humans are destroying the planet.
One of the beauties of this book has to be its availability. If you type “short history of the world” into Google, the free PDF of this book takes up much of the first 2 pages of results. If you’re sketchy on world history, this book will fill in the main blanks, and is worth a read if this is your aim, especially if you wish to do so quickly. The fact that it’s split up into so many succinct sections also means that you can pick up and put down the book as often as opportunity allows. It also works well as a reference book, as it does not need to be read from cover to cover in order to look up one particular event or time period.
In summary, this book would be a welcome addition to bookshelf (or ebook library) of the general non-fiction fan or historian.
Find more of my book review on www.bookblogbycari.com
As I hoped, the book often reads like a novel, with 67 distinct sections, each like a mini story. In order to fit the history of the whole world into one book, by nature the story telling ranges from nice and rapid, to a little too rapid. I found it rather like a catalogue of numerous interesting little nuggets of information. Despite covering events from all over the world, the topics often flow seamlessly from one topic to the next. Due to so many overlapping topics, this history of the world isn't told in a linear purely chronological pattern, but has to go backwards a little, now and again.
At various times throughout, the stories are gripping and Wells successfully brings history to life. I particularly liked the various sections on religious leaders. Appropriately, Wells tackles religion as would any unbiased historian-become storyteller. I also enjoyed the beginning, where Wells paints a crystal clear picture of our solar system and the vast empty space that our dramas are within. His description of our galaxy sounds nothing short of beautiful.
The book was meant to be predominantly factual, but Wells did include a substantial amount of speculation and opinion. This does not distract from the storyline, but adds value in generating the concepts of the time periods.
It covers progress and prosperity as much as carnage and decimation, and provides good explanations of everything it covers. (Although it would benefit from more illustrations). At times it feels detail heavy but also gives the reader a feel for each age - the book is not limited to which country went to war with which country and when, but also examines changes in ways of thinking through the ages. Including the Ancient Greek philosophers, Arabian progress in maths and science, the advent of experimental science, and the development of political and social ideas in Wells’ time.
I was reassured to learn that despite not studying the history of the world in its entirety in school, I was already familiar with much of the book’s content. Having said that, there were also topics where I really felt I was learning something. I read Wells’ opinion on why the Roman Empire fell, and how the industrial revolution was not merely a revolution in machinery, but rather a revolution in how people conducted their everyday lives. There were also some important figures from history described that were never mentioned in my school days, particularly Charlemagne and Roger Bacon.
Towards the end of the book, Wells correctly predicts another war like that of the Great War. However his final message was one of faith and hope in humanity’s progress.
With such a huge scope, Wells must have struggled with deciding what topics to include and what to exclude. I thought he ought to have included a touch more detail on Ancient Egypt, and on the causes of the Great War (World War 1). As a British person myself I would have liked to have seen more on British history.
Likewise, if the book were written now rather than 1922 I began to speculate on what he would and wouldn’t have included. I imagine there would certainly be a section on World War 2, rockets into space, the internet, and 9/11. He would have provided an excellently conducted section on how humans are destroying the planet.
One of the beauties of this book has to be its availability. If you type “short history of the world” into Google, the free PDF of this book takes up much of the first 2 pages of results. If you’re sketchy on world history, this book will fill in the main blanks, and is worth a read if this is your aim, especially if you wish to do so quickly. The fact that it’s split up into so many succinct sections also means that you can pick up and put down the book as often as opportunity allows. It also works well as a reference book, as it does not need to be read from cover to cover in order to look up one particular event or time period.
In summary, this book would be a welcome addition to bookshelf (or ebook library) of the general non-fiction fan or historian.
Find more of my book review on www.bookblogbycari.com
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Spotlight (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Trumbo (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
What is it that makes, not a great, but even a good biopic? It is certainly no enviable task, trying to condense decades of a person’s life into a mere two hours. Choosing what to keep and what to leave, stringing events together so that they feel as though they are one complete narrative opposed to a series of vignettes. And then there are the inevitable purists who will write off the entire product based on a single detail either left out or composited due to running time or budgetary restrictions. Over the years, I have found myself wrestling with my opinion of Braveheart. Do I enjoy it for its epic qualities, or do I cast it aside as the wretched historical inaccuracies fly in the face of what is one of the most important times in a country’s past?
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sanctuary in Books
Apr 27, 2018
rating: 3.8/5
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Alone (2020) in Movies
Nov 7, 2020
Fails To Live Up To It's Clone #Alive, Even Though It Was Made First (5/10)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Alone is a 2020 Survival/Horror movie directed by Johnny Martin and written by Matt Naylor. It was produced by Grindstone Entertainment Group and HIG Productions and distributed by Lionsgate. Producers who worked on the film include Rabih Aridi, Anne Jordan, and Johnny Martin. The movie stars Tyler Posey, Summer Spiro and Donald Sutherland.
Aiden (Tyler Posey) who lives alone in an apartment complex, learns of a mysterious rapidly-spreading disease that's causing its victims to attack and eat uninfected people. From his balcony, he can see his neighbors fleeing and others attacking one another. The news reports for people to hide and stay inside so he barricades himself inside his apartment and starts rationing food. His complex is overrun by those that are infected, and with the world falling apart into chaos, he is left completely alone fighting for his life and dealing with complete isolation.
This movie got me so confused in the beginning and not because it was confusing but because it was so similar to #Alive. I mean everything was happening the same in the movie, so much so that I was starting to believe they were made by the same company or something. I looked it up and what I found was that Alone was actually made before it's Korean counterpart #Alive and that #Alive was based off of the same script for Alone. That being said, I would have to say that #Alive is the better film. Alone is not a bad zombie film but having seen #Alive first, Alone fails to live up to it's Korean rival. There were some pretty cool scenes and the movie didn't lack action although it is a little slow paced here and there but just seemed lacking on a couple of fronts. I want to say more but I'm going to save it for the spoiler section. As is I give this movie a 5/10. It's a decent movie and good zombie movie but didn't do anything to go above and beyond. Felt like your average zombie film.
Spoiler Section Review:
So this movie really freaked me out because of how everything plot wise was happening exactly like the movie #Alive. Like how first thing in the movie he starts seeing neighbors going berserk and attacking people, then how he hears the report on the news and how a neighbor barges into his apartment to escape the infected on his floor. It even unfolds the same way from there that the guy is bitten and infected already and how Aiden (Tyler Posey) goes to the kitchen for a knife and kicks the guy out of his apartment as he is transforming into a zombie. So many things happen the exact same from the movie #Alive like how he runs out of food and water, how he tries to kill himself and how he finds out that there is another survivor in the complex which is a girl (Summer Spiro) who he starts communicating with and helps him mentally from going stir crazy. The similarities made this movie way more predictable then normal but I was still going along for the ride because it was interesting enough for a first time watch but I don't feel there is really anything to watch this movie a second time for. Aiden's personality and character were pretty dull and didn't make you empathize with him much. Summer Spiro as Eva was more charming but also didn't have alot to get you invested in her character. The zombies or infected were pretty horrible too with most looking like they were just people who twitched and ran around and less like actual zombies. Also I have a hang up on zombies that don't eat people but look like they just want to spread a disease/virus and I felt like for some of them in this movie it looked liked they weren't really eating their victims. This movie wasn't as scary or cool as #Alive but like I said it's not terrible but suffers from a lot of things that could have been done different. I gave this movie a 5/10.
Aiden (Tyler Posey) who lives alone in an apartment complex, learns of a mysterious rapidly-spreading disease that's causing its victims to attack and eat uninfected people. From his balcony, he can see his neighbors fleeing and others attacking one another. The news reports for people to hide and stay inside so he barricades himself inside his apartment and starts rationing food. His complex is overrun by those that are infected, and with the world falling apart into chaos, he is left completely alone fighting for his life and dealing with complete isolation.
This movie got me so confused in the beginning and not because it was confusing but because it was so similar to #Alive. I mean everything was happening the same in the movie, so much so that I was starting to believe they were made by the same company or something. I looked it up and what I found was that Alone was actually made before it's Korean counterpart #Alive and that #Alive was based off of the same script for Alone. That being said, I would have to say that #Alive is the better film. Alone is not a bad zombie film but having seen #Alive first, Alone fails to live up to it's Korean rival. There were some pretty cool scenes and the movie didn't lack action although it is a little slow paced here and there but just seemed lacking on a couple of fronts. I want to say more but I'm going to save it for the spoiler section. As is I give this movie a 5/10. It's a decent movie and good zombie movie but didn't do anything to go above and beyond. Felt like your average zombie film.
Spoiler Section Review:
So this movie really freaked me out because of how everything plot wise was happening exactly like the movie #Alive. Like how first thing in the movie he starts seeing neighbors going berserk and attacking people, then how he hears the report on the news and how a neighbor barges into his apartment to escape the infected on his floor. It even unfolds the same way from there that the guy is bitten and infected already and how Aiden (Tyler Posey) goes to the kitchen for a knife and kicks the guy out of his apartment as he is transforming into a zombie. So many things happen the exact same from the movie #Alive like how he runs out of food and water, how he tries to kill himself and how he finds out that there is another survivor in the complex which is a girl (Summer Spiro) who he starts communicating with and helps him mentally from going stir crazy. The similarities made this movie way more predictable then normal but I was still going along for the ride because it was interesting enough for a first time watch but I don't feel there is really anything to watch this movie a second time for. Aiden's personality and character were pretty dull and didn't make you empathize with him much. Summer Spiro as Eva was more charming but also didn't have alot to get you invested in her character. The zombies or infected were pretty horrible too with most looking like they were just people who twitched and ran around and less like actual zombies. Also I have a hang up on zombies that don't eat people but look like they just want to spread a disease/virus and I felt like for some of them in this movie it looked liked they weren't really eating their victims. This movie wasn't as scary or cool as #Alive but like I said it's not terrible but suffers from a lot of things that could have been done different. I gave this movie a 5/10.