Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Pretty Girls: A Novel in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Claire Scott leads a seemingly perfect life - she's beautiful and adored by her wealthy husband, Paul. However, Claire's life is shadowed by the disappearance of her eldest sister, Julia, over twenty years ago. Julia went missing while in college and was never seen again. In the aftermath, Claire lost not only Julia, but her other sister, Lydia, as the sisters have been estranged for years. As a result, Claire has clung to Paul and the comfort and security he provides . However, a new tragic event changes everything for Claire - and will eventually lead her to look at everything in her life differently, including Julia's disappearance and her relationship with Lydia.
I really enjoyed this novel - it's engaging and suspenseful: filled with twists and turns. Sometimes you see them coming and other times you don't. It's a quick read, but not a particularly light one - be prepared for a dark read. The book is raw, violent, and even heartbreaking at points. Most of the story unfolds from Julia and Claire's point of view, but we also hear a little bit from their father between chapters. As the novel progresses, we learn not only about the present day mystery (which is captivating) but what happened to their sister, Julia, so long ago.
The book's strength is that it presents not only a compelling and interesting mystery tale, but a chilling portrait of its characters, as well. You get a good look into the lives of Lydia and Claire and their own psychological motivations. It goes beyond a thriller into a story of parenthood and sisterhood. Frankly, as a parent, there are parts of this book that break my heart and made me want to never let my children out of my sight! But, truly, that was what made it so good - it deftly portrayed the evil that can befall them in the world.
Some of the plot points are a bit fantastical and it suffers from the trope where Claire and Paul Scott just have unlimited financial resources, but overall, I found this one fascinating. Definitely a worthy read.
I really enjoyed this novel - it's engaging and suspenseful: filled with twists and turns. Sometimes you see them coming and other times you don't. It's a quick read, but not a particularly light one - be prepared for a dark read. The book is raw, violent, and even heartbreaking at points. Most of the story unfolds from Julia and Claire's point of view, but we also hear a little bit from their father between chapters. As the novel progresses, we learn not only about the present day mystery (which is captivating) but what happened to their sister, Julia, so long ago.
The book's strength is that it presents not only a compelling and interesting mystery tale, but a chilling portrait of its characters, as well. You get a good look into the lives of Lydia and Claire and their own psychological motivations. It goes beyond a thriller into a story of parenthood and sisterhood. Frankly, as a parent, there are parts of this book that break my heart and made me want to never let my children out of my sight! But, truly, that was what made it so good - it deftly portrayed the evil that can befall them in the world.
Some of the plot points are a bit fantastical and it suffers from the trope where Claire and Paul Scott just have unlimited financial resources, but overall, I found this one fascinating. Definitely a worthy read.
The Story of Arthur Truluv
8.0
Rate It
Book
"I dare you to read this novel and not fall in love with Arthur Truluv. His story will make you...
young adult
MelanieTheresa (997 KP) rated Connections In Death (In Death #48) in Books
Mar 11, 2019
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the In Death series is hands down my favorite series from any author in any genre. Terrific, well-written characters in a not-so-distant future NYC; the series manages to be both familiar and fresh, even after 48 installments. That's saying something.
The very first line of the very first chapter made me laugh out loud, and is so perfectly Eve Dallas:
"The legalized torture of socializing lined right up to premeditated murder when you added the requirement of fancy shoes."
Beginning with a cocktail party during which Eve and Roarke and other recurring characters are socializing and being generally hilarious, this installment was in my opinion a bit more "fun" than the previous installment. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of serious moments, of course, but I found a bit more levity throughout. For example, Eve's complete bewilderment when Roarke shows her the progress on the farm in Nebraska which he purchased on a bet between the two of them. This may have been one of my favorite moments.
The case Eve is working is gang-related, and much easier to navigate than the convoluted case at the center of #47. Crack's new girlfriend, Rochelle - who is also Roarke's top pick to run An Didean - loses her recovered addict/gangbanger brother in a gang hit, and we go from there. It was nice seeing Crack in a different light, as well, and I enjoy him with Rochelle.
Overall, a worthy installment. Can't wait for #49!
The very first line of the very first chapter made me laugh out loud, and is so perfectly Eve Dallas:
"The legalized torture of socializing lined right up to premeditated murder when you added the requirement of fancy shoes."
Beginning with a cocktail party during which Eve and Roarke and other recurring characters are socializing and being generally hilarious, this installment was in my opinion a bit more "fun" than the previous installment. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of serious moments, of course, but I found a bit more levity throughout. For example, Eve's complete bewilderment when Roarke shows her the progress on the farm in Nebraska which he purchased on a bet between the two of them. This may have been one of my favorite moments.
The case Eve is working is gang-related, and much easier to navigate than the convoluted case at the center of #47. Crack's new girlfriend, Rochelle - who is also Roarke's top pick to run An Didean - loses her recovered addict/gangbanger brother in a gang hit, and we go from there. It was nice seeing Crack in a different light, as well, and I enjoy him with Rochelle.
Overall, a worthy installment. Can't wait for #49!
The 50 Things: Lessons for When You Feel Lost, Love Dad
Book
Praise for The 50 Things: "This book is that rare thing: a non-preachy and super-helpful guide....
Transference: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book 8
Book
Alcibiades attempted to seduce Socrates, he wanted to make him, and in the most openly avowed way...
The Happiness Project: Or, Why I Spent a Year Trying to Sing in the Morning, Clean My Closets, Fight Right, Read Aristotle, and Generally Have More Fun
6.0
Rate It
Book
"Wonderful...Rubin shows how you can be happier, starting right now, with small, actionable steps...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Project Almanac (2015) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
Dumb-as-nails but unpretentious CW teen soap opera reimagining of a time travel film - in which the machine itself is built using parts from an Xbox 360 and there are prominent slo-mo shots of Red Bull cans flying through the air. And what's the most noteworthy thing they do with the power of time travel right at their fingertips? Go to an Imagine Dragons concert, of course! Seems like it hates its own existence, no question about it - this was only made to sell tickets and that's it. But there's something really stupidly fun about it - maybe it's the neurotic nature of each element (from the acting to the camerawork to the cutting to the writing etc), or the fact that people record a good chunk of this pointlessly (but thankfully) found footage Chronicle ripoff with their smartphones yet they still make the clunky old camera sounds? And when they *do* record with the 10+ year old camcorder (which still takes tape btw) it's somehow pristine HD quality? I also really have to appreciate that so much of this is dedicated to the actual anxiety of making the machine itself, too - rather than jumping right into the travel stuff. Kind of falls off when this becomes another lame YA romance deal but even then it's still so confidently dumb and committed to its daft premise that I had to admire it somewhat. Also whenever they turn the machine on and everything starts floating and spinning that shit is cool as fuck and you know it.
Blood Moon (Wildeward Academy #3)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Spring is in the air and so are the lust demons and luck imps. You know—cupids and leprechauns....
Reverse Harem Paranormal Romance Historical
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 21, 2019
Middle of the Road
I have to give the Walt Disney Company credit, with their Live Action remakes of their classic animated movies, they have developed a very lucrative profit stream with properties that they already own - and are well known to audiences. Some are successful (THE JUNGLE BOOK, ALADDIN), some are not quite so successful (DUMBO, ALICE IN WONDERLAND).
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Moonlight (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Waxing or Waning?
Seldom do I go to see a movie where I know so little about the plot as this one. I knew it was a “coming of age” drama about a young man growing up in a black neighbourhood in Miami. Period. That ignorance was bliss (so that’s the way this review will stay: I will avoid my usual high-level summary here). For there are twists in this story that you don’t see coming, and moments of such dramatic force that they are cinematically searing.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.