Search
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Truly Devious (Truly Devious #1) in Books
Feb 6, 2018
Feisty heroine (2 more)
Great mystery plots
Keeps you guessing
Fun, suspenseful page-turner
Stephanie "Stevie" Bell is very excited when she is accepted to Ellingham Academy, an elite private school in Vermont for free-thinking junior and senior high school students. Ellingham was founded by wealthy Albert Ellingham as a place where students can learn in their own ways, and where puzzle and riddles take center stage. The school became especially infamous when Albert's wife, Iris, and young daughter, Alice, were kidnapped not long after it opened. Shortly before the kidnapping, Albert received a mocking riddle threatening of murder in all sorts of forms via the mail. Now that Stevie is at Ellingham, her goal is to solve Iris and Alice's cold case. A true crime junkie, she knows everything about it and believes that being on the scene is the missing piece she needs to put everything together. But first she needs to get used to being away from home, befriend her eclectic group of housemates, and then deal with a shocking new crime that rocks Ellingham to its core.
I really love Maureen Johnson's Shades of London series, so I was really excited to see she had a new mystery series coming out. It didn't disappoint. This was a really fun, fascinating book featuring a great, feisty heroine in Stevie Bell. I fell for Stevie immediately, with her awkward demeanor and allegiance to old-school detective novels. Johnson has done a great job in creating a well-rounded character in Stevie, who really shines in this novel.
The intersecting mysteries will suck you in immediately. I basically wanted to ignore work and responsibilities and keep reading this one. The novel tells the book mainly from Steve's point of view, but we also get bits and pieces from the past--various narrators, case notes, etc. It's quite effective, and you'll find yourself intrigued by the Alice/Iris kidnapping, as well as the current tragedy that befalls Ellingham.
Steve's housemates at Ellingham are diverse and a bit crazy--they are a lot to sort through, but interesting nonetheless. This book will definitely keep you guessing, that's for sure. The cliffhanger ending is crazy--be prepared that this is a trilogy and that everything isn't wrapped up tidily!
Nonetheless, I really enjoyed this one, and I cannot wait to read the next book! I love Stevie--I felt such a pull to this plucky detective, who owns no jewelry, wears a lot of black, and can't dance. The book also treats mental illness in a great, matter-of-fact way, with its honest portrayal of Stevie's anxiety and panic attacks. Everything combines into a fun, interesting, suspenseful, page-turner that will leave you wanting more.
I really love Maureen Johnson's Shades of London series, so I was really excited to see she had a new mystery series coming out. It didn't disappoint. This was a really fun, fascinating book featuring a great, feisty heroine in Stevie Bell. I fell for Stevie immediately, with her awkward demeanor and allegiance to old-school detective novels. Johnson has done a great job in creating a well-rounded character in Stevie, who really shines in this novel.
The intersecting mysteries will suck you in immediately. I basically wanted to ignore work and responsibilities and keep reading this one. The novel tells the book mainly from Steve's point of view, but we also get bits and pieces from the past--various narrators, case notes, etc. It's quite effective, and you'll find yourself intrigued by the Alice/Iris kidnapping, as well as the current tragedy that befalls Ellingham.
Steve's housemates at Ellingham are diverse and a bit crazy--they are a lot to sort through, but interesting nonetheless. This book will definitely keep you guessing, that's for sure. The cliffhanger ending is crazy--be prepared that this is a trilogy and that everything isn't wrapped up tidily!
Nonetheless, I really enjoyed this one, and I cannot wait to read the next book! I love Stevie--I felt such a pull to this plucky detective, who owns no jewelry, wears a lot of black, and can't dance. The book also treats mental illness in a great, matter-of-fact way, with its honest portrayal of Stevie's anxiety and panic attacks. Everything combines into a fun, interesting, suspenseful, page-turner that will leave you wanting more.
Breaking Through: Stories and Best Practices from Companies That Help Women Succeed
Martine Liautaud and Christine Lagarde
Book
When women succeed, we all win. Breaking Through explores the mentoring relationship, and unravels...
Comprehensive Review in Clinical Neurology: A Multiple Choice Book for the Wards and Boards
Esteban Cheng-Ching, Eric P. Baron and Alexander Rae-Grant
Book
Your go-to resource for effective, efficient board study! The 2nd Edition of Comprehensive Review in...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Everybody Wants Some!! (2016) in Movies
Aug 23, 2019
Great Movie About Absolutely Nothing
Everybody Wants Some!! follows the lives of a group of college baseball players at a junior college in their days leading up to preseason training.
Acting: 10
This movie is largely a character piece and it wouldn’t work nearly as well without such great acting performances. There are no weak links here as each performance is memorable in its own way. The acting was so efficient, there were a handful of moments where it almost felt like you were watching a documentary as opposed to a fictional movie.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
No two players are alike in the movie, each of them bringing something different to the table. As the movie progresses from one act to the next, it is pure entertainment watching them react to different scenarios so differently. My favorite character on the team was Finnegan (Glen Powell). Charismatic and ever-changing, I love how he adapts to new situations and always had a go-with-the-flow attitude. Jay Niles cracked me up as well for his ridiculous intensity that you have to see to understand.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You know a movie really gets to you visually when you find yourself saying, “Man, it would’ve been cool to live during that time period.” Everybody Wants Some!! captures the cool, fun feel of the 70’s on all fronts from one scene to the next. While the film doesn’t leave the town where it takes place, you’re entertained with a number of different setpieces that change the dynamic of the movie in their own way.
Conflict: 5
Definitely the weakest part of the movie. Nothing terrible really happens to the characters at the end of the day leaving no room for any kind of worry. It is amazing that the movie still works so well with so little conflict to keep you engaged.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
This movie reminded me of my college days and I’m probably not alone in this. It makes you remember younger days and having zero responsibility. It’s also a movie that doesn’t leave its replay value. Definitely a movie I could watch repeatedly.
Pace: 10
The movie proceeds in definable acts based around parties and it works in a loose structure kind of way. You never really know where the story is going until you get near the end and you realize it’s going absolutely nowhere. But that’s ok because the road to nowhere in this case is extremely fun and memorable.
Plot: 5
Resolution: 10
The movie ends just as chill as it started, very fitting for its overall lackadaisical tone. A little bit of perspective ties things on with a nice little bow before the movie bows out gracefully. Beyond satisfying.
Overall: 90
Everybody Wants Some!! is the perfect Exhibit A case of sometimes less is just more. The film is light-hearted, yet you’ll be having such a good time you’ll probably forget nothing substantial is actually happening. It’s a wonderful film that will give you something new each time you watch it.
Acting: 10
This movie is largely a character piece and it wouldn’t work nearly as well without such great acting performances. There are no weak links here as each performance is memorable in its own way. The acting was so efficient, there were a handful of moments where it almost felt like you were watching a documentary as opposed to a fictional movie.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
No two players are alike in the movie, each of them bringing something different to the table. As the movie progresses from one act to the next, it is pure entertainment watching them react to different scenarios so differently. My favorite character on the team was Finnegan (Glen Powell). Charismatic and ever-changing, I love how he adapts to new situations and always had a go-with-the-flow attitude. Jay Niles cracked me up as well for his ridiculous intensity that you have to see to understand.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You know a movie really gets to you visually when you find yourself saying, “Man, it would’ve been cool to live during that time period.” Everybody Wants Some!! captures the cool, fun feel of the 70’s on all fronts from one scene to the next. While the film doesn’t leave the town where it takes place, you’re entertained with a number of different setpieces that change the dynamic of the movie in their own way.
Conflict: 5
Definitely the weakest part of the movie. Nothing terrible really happens to the characters at the end of the day leaving no room for any kind of worry. It is amazing that the movie still works so well with so little conflict to keep you engaged.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
This movie reminded me of my college days and I’m probably not alone in this. It makes you remember younger days and having zero responsibility. It’s also a movie that doesn’t leave its replay value. Definitely a movie I could watch repeatedly.
Pace: 10
The movie proceeds in definable acts based around parties and it works in a loose structure kind of way. You never really know where the story is going until you get near the end and you realize it’s going absolutely nowhere. But that’s ok because the road to nowhere in this case is extremely fun and memorable.
Plot: 5
Resolution: 10
The movie ends just as chill as it started, very fitting for its overall lackadaisical tone. A little bit of perspective ties things on with a nice little bow before the movie bows out gracefully. Beyond satisfying.
Overall: 90
Everybody Wants Some!! is the perfect Exhibit A case of sometimes less is just more. The film is light-hearted, yet you’ll be having such a good time you’ll probably forget nothing substantial is actually happening. It’s a wonderful film that will give you something new each time you watch it.
Shelle Perry (66 KP) rated The Drop-Dead Temple of Doom (The Alvarez Family Murder Mysteries) in Books
Sep 22, 2021
Get ready for a wild ride
Get ready for a wild ride, this book is non-stop from beginning to end. Sure it starts on a calm Sunday morning and escalates quickly when Lee’s husband is called into action to find his cousin’s husband, Martin, who is missing in the Guatemalan jungle. Despite her being an indoor kind of girl, he recruits Lee onto the mission because he senses there is a mystery to solve at the archeological dig where his cousin works. He is of course right. Kidnapping, vandalism, theft, maybe murder? Lee is on a roll pulling together the facts and clues with her “survival trained” CEO mother in tow and her trusty, IT genius brother on the sat phone. The Alvarez Family is on the case. Twists and turns abound leading to a grand reveal that is as humorous as it is serious. I certainly never picked up on all the secrets.
I loved this book.
I chose to read it because I live with a junior archeologist and my daily life is filled with words like stratigraphy, digs, grants, and finds. Plus, there is lecture upon lecture about ancient artifacts, ancient history, and just what it all means (spoiler alert: It’s probably ritual). The fairly recent discoveries of LIDAR enhanced ruins covering the jungles of Central America are of particular interest around here at the moment. This book looked like fun and I am always looking to see if someone writing a story about this stuff gets it right. Heather Haven definitely did.
This is a story of intrigue, backstabbing, and just plain greed and that is just the academics on staff. Once people start dying the story really gets interesting. This book has a large cast of characters, all of them vivid and well written and so perfectly suspect. The relationship between Lee and her mom, Lila, is hilarious. On one hand, Lee is a grown woman who has proven time and again that she is quite capable, yet Lila can reduce her to gibbering incoherence in a single glance. “But, Mom!” is the comedic subtext behind most of their dialogue. Still, the two make a terrific sleuthing team and there is a lot of ground to cover in this tale. In addition to great characters, the description of the look and feel of the jungle and rainforests is spot on and puts the reader right in it.
I loved this book.
I chose to read it because I live with a junior archeologist and my daily life is filled with words like stratigraphy, digs, grants, and finds. Plus, there is lecture upon lecture about ancient artifacts, ancient history, and just what it all means (spoiler alert: It’s probably ritual). The fairly recent discoveries of LIDAR enhanced ruins covering the jungles of Central America are of particular interest around here at the moment. This book looked like fun and I am always looking to see if someone writing a story about this stuff gets it right. Heather Haven definitely did.
This is a story of intrigue, backstabbing, and just plain greed and that is just the academics on staff. Once people start dying the story really gets interesting. This book has a large cast of characters, all of them vivid and well written and so perfectly suspect. The relationship between Lee and her mom, Lila, is hilarious. On one hand, Lee is a grown woman who has proven time and again that she is quite capable, yet Lila can reduce her to gibbering incoherence in a single glance. “But, Mom!” is the comedic subtext behind most of their dialogue. Still, the two make a terrific sleuthing team and there is a lot of ground to cover in this tale. In addition to great characters, the description of the look and feel of the jungle and rainforests is spot on and puts the reader right in it.
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney – Dual Destinies
Games
App
************************************************ ※NOTICE※ This game does not support devices...
RealWorld Orthopaedics
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
* FEATURED IN AAOS' MULTIMEDIA EDUCATION CENTER * * Now compatible with iOS 8 * RealWorld...
Playkids Party - Fun Games for Children
Games and Education
App
Let's get this party started! Join Junior and friends on this amazing collection of fun and...
Writers' Forum Magazine
Book and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Writers’ Forum is the markets leading title for writers. Every issue features special interviews...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?