Search
Search results
XO (Kathryn Dance #3)
9.0
Rate It
Book
Kayleigh Towne is gorgeous with a voice that is taking her to the heights of the country pop charts....
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Peterloo (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Peterloo was a daunting prospect even before getting into the screen. 154 minutes... that's 2 hours and 34 minutes of a very bleak piece of history.
If you've read some of my comments before about real-life event films you'll know that I struggle with the fact that it feels like I'm judging the subject rather than the film itself. Peterloo is no exception.
There is a truly impressive cast bringing this story to life. Lots of faces you'll recognise from one thing or another. I did have to stop myself from exclaiming out loud "Jack Boswell!" when he popped up and that certainly wasn't the only pointing at the screen moment. Performances all round were very good, whether they be someone to sympathise with, or someone to loathe.
You use the word massacre in the description of a film and you know it isn't going to be an easy watch. Unfortunately it was a difficult watch for a completely different reason. This film didn't seem accessible at all. You have to applaud them for wanting to bring a whole story to the screen without cutting lots of pieces out. The timeline seems to generally flow well and it did feel like we were getting the whole journey from start to finish.
Here's where I have a major problem.
The sheer length of this film. While I don't doubt that all the bits were important it honestly felt very repetitive. That coupled with the language made it a very dry watch. I nearly gave up and left. The couple behind me did. Which was actually a godsend because once they did I didn't feel so bad about having to move about to stop myself dozing off. This could easily have been 45 minutes shorter than it was, sacrificing something from the film would have given it a quicker pace to draw you.
What upset me most about this is that the powerful ending that was done so well felt entirely swamped by the long and drawn out beginning. When the scene unfolds you know what's coming but there's no way to prepare yourself for what they've created on the screen. In that moment I was thankful that I'd managed to stick it out just to get to that point. It was done in such a way that you completely understood what was happening and it came with an emotion that brought this tragedy shockingly to life.
Sadly that moment was stolen by this film's villain, time. This scene just kept going. There was a moment where it felt like it had come to a close... and yet it went on. I wasn't entirely surprised with that after seeing the beginning of the film, but I was disappointed. To add insult to injury we were given a brief dialogue at the end that felt very much like an after thought. And with that, I was done.
This is yet another film I've seen recently that felt like it would have been more suited to a multi episode TV series. It had very clear parts and I can't help but think that it would have benefited from being broken up into more manageable sections.
What you should do
Unless you're a massive history enthusiast I can't recommend this one to you. I really feel like your time would be better spent researching the story on the internet or finding a book in the library about it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It's difficult to want for anything in this period of history, but there's no denying that I would love to give that printer a go.
If you've read some of my comments before about real-life event films you'll know that I struggle with the fact that it feels like I'm judging the subject rather than the film itself. Peterloo is no exception.
There is a truly impressive cast bringing this story to life. Lots of faces you'll recognise from one thing or another. I did have to stop myself from exclaiming out loud "Jack Boswell!" when he popped up and that certainly wasn't the only pointing at the screen moment. Performances all round were very good, whether they be someone to sympathise with, or someone to loathe.
You use the word massacre in the description of a film and you know it isn't going to be an easy watch. Unfortunately it was a difficult watch for a completely different reason. This film didn't seem accessible at all. You have to applaud them for wanting to bring a whole story to the screen without cutting lots of pieces out. The timeline seems to generally flow well and it did feel like we were getting the whole journey from start to finish.
Here's where I have a major problem.
The sheer length of this film. While I don't doubt that all the bits were important it honestly felt very repetitive. That coupled with the language made it a very dry watch. I nearly gave up and left. The couple behind me did. Which was actually a godsend because once they did I didn't feel so bad about having to move about to stop myself dozing off. This could easily have been 45 minutes shorter than it was, sacrificing something from the film would have given it a quicker pace to draw you.
What upset me most about this is that the powerful ending that was done so well felt entirely swamped by the long and drawn out beginning. When the scene unfolds you know what's coming but there's no way to prepare yourself for what they've created on the screen. In that moment I was thankful that I'd managed to stick it out just to get to that point. It was done in such a way that you completely understood what was happening and it came with an emotion that brought this tragedy shockingly to life.
Sadly that moment was stolen by this film's villain, time. This scene just kept going. There was a moment where it felt like it had come to a close... and yet it went on. I wasn't entirely surprised with that after seeing the beginning of the film, but I was disappointed. To add insult to injury we were given a brief dialogue at the end that felt very much like an after thought. And with that, I was done.
This is yet another film I've seen recently that felt like it would have been more suited to a multi episode TV series. It had very clear parts and I can't help but think that it would have benefited from being broken up into more manageable sections.
What you should do
Unless you're a massive history enthusiast I can't recommend this one to you. I really feel like your time would be better spent researching the story on the internet or finding a book in the library about it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It's difficult to want for anything in this period of history, but there's no denying that I would love to give that printer a go.
Sheridan (209 KP) rated Mindhunter - Season 1 in TV
Apr 28, 2019
The Content (1 more)
The Concept
Slow Yet Twisted
I had a friend recommend this show to me and I thought, alright I'm constantly attempting to figure out why people's minds work the way they do, this could be interesting. Let me tell you right off the bat, push through that first episode, I promise you it gets more interesting. The first episode is a disaster, there's too much shoved in there (one second Ford is an active agent, then suddenly he's teaching, straight after he's at college, then he's working in the BSU) it was dull at best and dead confusing at worst. While the content is interesting, the characters and the relationships are odd and strained. Ford comes across like an actual serial killer (especially when he does that creepy wide-eyed stare *shivers*), he's socially awkward, his mannerisms feel stunted and strange and overall he is not a likeable character. I like to feel connected in some way to the characters I'm watching and at this stage Ed is more relatable than Ford (which is terrifying because - actual murderer there ?). The girlfriend is even worse, they both feel just - forced (and what's with the weirdly placed sex scenes?! They don't add anything to the story at all!) There's oddly placed scenes which are weird and don't make sense (Carr and the tuna/invisible cat - why - just why was that in there? It wasn't necessary and what was the point of that? Was it supposed to be creepy? Unsettling? Because for me it was just random and pointless). Tench is the only consistant, interesting character (who, bless him, smokes waaaay too much). Overall the show is slow, which admittedly can be a good thing, especially because at first they see so much resistance to the idea that people aren't always just 'born bad', but it never really picks up speed (like you're kind of expecting it to). The last episode is very odd, Ford becomes confusing and erratic, which is a complete 360 from his dead-eyed emotionally inept character in the first episodes. Is he having a breakdown? Is he realising he shares traits with the violent killers he's interviewing? The ending didn't make sense to me at all. I give the show an 8 for content because it is super fascinating, and appropriately disturbing but character wise it's definitely a 5, you just never really 'connect' with anyone. That being said, I will watch the next season, because it's still an interesting show, though it will be at the bottom of my 'to watch' list.
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a hardcore Shakespeare fan. One of my bosses at work knows this and let me borrow her copy of this book thinking that it would interest me. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Seance (Harrison Investigation, #5) in Books
Jun 6, 2018
I've always been a big fan of Heather Graham. All of her books are amazing, and this one was no different.
I love the Harrison Investigation books because I love the way crime & the paranormal are combined. However, this book didn't have that much paranormal going on for it which disappointed me a bit.
Another thing that was a bit disappointing were the grammatical errors "What do to" instead of "What to do". And in one place, the character of Katherine, her name changes to Kathleen for 2 pages!!
Other than that, it was a good read. The prologue really got me interested in the book. Then it got a bit boring, but gradually, it became interesting again.
One other thing that bothered me was the sex in this book. I'm not a big fan of sex in books. I didn't think it needed that much description as Heather Graham put in there, but that is just a personal preference.
Like I said, a very good read that won't disappoint!
I love the Harrison Investigation books because I love the way crime & the paranormal are combined. However, this book didn't have that much paranormal going on for it which disappointed me a bit.
Another thing that was a bit disappointing were the grammatical errors "What do to" instead of "What to do". And in one place, the character of Katherine, her name changes to Kathleen for 2 pages!!
Other than that, it was a good read. The prologue really got me interested in the book. Then it got a bit boring, but gradually, it became interesting again.
One other thing that bothered me was the sex in this book. I'm not a big fan of sex in books. I didn't think it needed that much description as Heather Graham put in there, but that is just a personal preference.
Like I said, a very good read that won't disappoint!
Jarvis Cocker recommended Shepherd in a Sheepskin Vest by Bill Callahan in Music (curated)
BobbiesDustyPages (1259 KP) rated Alice in Zombieland - White Rabbit Chronicles in Books
Jul 23, 2017
This was bad. read in 2013
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have to say this is one of the most misleading titles I have ever seen. I was really excited to read this book it sounded interesting and I've been a fan of both Alice in Wonderland and Zombies since I was just a kid so this seemed right up my alley..too bad that's not what I got at all. I read a little less than half the book and I just couldn't make myself finish it it was causing me actual pain.
One of the things that really got to me that actually had nothing to do with the plot was that it was so damn preachy and that was only in the first chapter, I don't mind books that talk about religion or a charter having a set religion but please do not make me feel like I'm being tricked in to going to church with out warning.
The only thing that this book had to do with Alice in Wonderland was a cloud that looked like a white rabbit, the name Alice and a few very small things.
Also, it was like the author looked up every cliche for a YA book and every teenage cliche from books and movies,(the perfect popular girl, the stunningly pretty but I'm so average protagonist, and the dark bad boy and slut shaming.)threw them in a blender and came out this.
Alice or Ali could have been a strong female lead but she came off as a mean, selfish, and a whiny person that I did not connect with at all, actually the only character I kind of like was her little sister Emma..and that didn't last long.
Cole was absolutely horrid, please stop making these alpha male asshole characters in YA books it's not clever or cute or romantic it down right unhealthy.
The writing was about average and since I know nothing about this author it doesn't really make me want to give any of her other works even a chance if this is what I'm in for.
The only thing I liked about this book was the title which wasn't even original and the cover art.
So all in all if you're looking for:
A take on Alice in Wonderland
Zombies and everything that comes with them
A teen girl kicking ass and killing the undead
Actual zombies at all
A good book
Then move along and don't waste your money because you'll get none of that here.
One of the things that really got to me that actually had nothing to do with the plot was that it was so damn preachy and that was only in the first chapter, I don't mind books that talk about religion or a charter having a set religion but please do not make me feel like I'm being tricked in to going to church with out warning.
The only thing that this book had to do with Alice in Wonderland was a cloud that looked like a white rabbit, the name Alice and a few very small things.
Also, it was like the author looked up every cliche for a YA book and every teenage cliche from books and movies,(the perfect popular girl, the stunningly pretty but I'm so average protagonist, and the dark bad boy and slut shaming.)threw them in a blender and came out this.
Alice or Ali could have been a strong female lead but she came off as a mean, selfish, and a whiny person that I did not connect with at all, actually the only character I kind of like was her little sister Emma..and that didn't last long.
Cole was absolutely horrid, please stop making these alpha male asshole characters in YA books it's not clever or cute or romantic it down right unhealthy.
The writing was about average and since I know nothing about this author it doesn't really make me want to give any of her other works even a chance if this is what I'm in for.
The only thing I liked about this book was the title which wasn't even original and the cover art.
So all in all if you're looking for:
A take on Alice in Wonderland
Zombies and everything that comes with them
A teen girl kicking ass and killing the undead
Actual zombies at all
A good book
Then move along and don't waste your money because you'll get none of that here.
James Dean Bradfield recommended Alice In Chains by Alice In Chains in Music (curated)
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Broken Monsters in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Broken Monsters was what I call “High Concept, Poor Execution.” There were two major things that caused me to decide not to finish it.
The first reason: The story was written from several different characters perspectives, and it switched almost every chapter. Some books can get away with this (generally there are two or three PoV) but this one had like 5 different voices, and it was just too much to keep track of.
The second and most important reason: The relationship between the police officer and her daughter. Seriously, no police officer is going to pick up her high school daughter and start telling her all about the secret case they haven’t yet allowed the press to get wind of, or tell her details or hunches, or—what really set me off—have her daughter help her use a search engine to find photos from nasty crime scenes. You just don’t do that.
The premise was cool and the bad-guy was amazing (his PoV was my favorite) but I just couldn’t keep going with those two factors.
The first reason: The story was written from several different characters perspectives, and it switched almost every chapter. Some books can get away with this (generally there are two or three PoV) but this one had like 5 different voices, and it was just too much to keep track of.
The second and most important reason: The relationship between the police officer and her daughter. Seriously, no police officer is going to pick up her high school daughter and start telling her all about the secret case they haven’t yet allowed the press to get wind of, or tell her details or hunches, or—what really set me off—have her daughter help her use a search engine to find photos from nasty crime scenes. You just don’t do that.
The premise was cool and the bad-guy was amazing (his PoV was my favorite) but I just couldn’t keep going with those two factors.
Learn Lua for IOS Game Development
Book
So you have a great game idea for iPhone or iPad, but Objective-C just seems a bit daunting. What...