Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Misery (1990) in Movies
Oct 11, 2018
Brilliant
I need to be very honest now, despite being a massive film and Stephen King fan, I have never seen Misery until now. I’ve read the book many times, but for some reason I never got round to watching the film, and I’m pretty ashamed of myself.
This is one of the best Stephen King adaptations out there. Kathy Bates is phenomenal as Annie, she plays her perfectly. James Caan would never have been my first choice as Paul Sheldon, but he does very well. The entire film is so true to the book, it’s surprisingly good. Whilst I wouldn’t call it a horror film, it’s definitely one of the best thriller films out there despite its age. I can’t fault this film at all.
This is one of the best Stephen King adaptations out there. Kathy Bates is phenomenal as Annie, she plays her perfectly. James Caan would never have been my first choice as Paul Sheldon, but he does very well. The entire film is so true to the book, it’s surprisingly good. Whilst I wouldn’t call it a horror film, it’s definitely one of the best thriller films out there despite its age. I can’t fault this film at all.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Murder of King Tut in Books
Apr 27, 2018
THE MURDER OF KING TUT—THE PLOT TO KILL THE CHILD KING (Audio Book) by James Patterson and Martin Dugard, read by Joe Barrett
Genre: non-fiction thriller
Rating: 4.5/5
Summary: James Patterson tells a story in three parts—one part, the mysterious death of King Tut, the second part the discovery of his tomb by Carter, and the third part his writing, own exploration, research, and discovery of the elusive history of the boy king.
Thoughts: This is one of the best James Patterson books I’ve ever read (listened too). JP has taken an age old mystery and solved it. Yes, it appears as though the mystery of Tut is mystery no more. This book is very alive, even though the plot revolves around a murder. I felt like I was standing right there, watching it all take place. At times, I felt like the characters themselves. This was an amazing escape from reality.
Characters (5/5): Characters should be relatable for a book to be enjoyable, and the characters in Tut’s world were wonderful. They were highly developed right away, and were the kind that either you routed for or hated with a passion.
Writing (4/5/5): James is an awesome writer. I always love reading his work because it’s so lyric. His words flow smoothly and he doesn’t overuse too many phrases (though several “waves” of various things did “wash over” many people).
Content (4/5): There was barely any language in this book, which was a nice change of JP’s work. It wasn’t necessary, either. It just goes to show that the point can be made—and made well—without filthy language. There was a little bit of sex but it wasn’t too graphic, nor was it frequent.
Reader (4/5): I really liked the voice of the reader for this book. I’ve heard some pretty awful ones before, I’ll say that much right now! But Joe’s voice was perfect for this book. The only thing I didn’t like were the voices he put with the characters—the accents were pretty lousy, and when he put on a “fake” voice for the child characters, it just sounded a little silly. I was glad when Tut got old enough that he didn’t have to do that anymore!
Recommendation: Ages 16+ to lovers of fiction, history, nonfiction, thrillers, mystery, or to any James-Patterson-addict.
Genre: non-fiction thriller
Rating: 4.5/5
Summary: James Patterson tells a story in three parts—one part, the mysterious death of King Tut, the second part the discovery of his tomb by Carter, and the third part his writing, own exploration, research, and discovery of the elusive history of the boy king.
Thoughts: This is one of the best James Patterson books I’ve ever read (listened too). JP has taken an age old mystery and solved it. Yes, it appears as though the mystery of Tut is mystery no more. This book is very alive, even though the plot revolves around a murder. I felt like I was standing right there, watching it all take place. At times, I felt like the characters themselves. This was an amazing escape from reality.
Characters (5/5): Characters should be relatable for a book to be enjoyable, and the characters in Tut’s world were wonderful. They were highly developed right away, and were the kind that either you routed for or hated with a passion.
Writing (4/5/5): James is an awesome writer. I always love reading his work because it’s so lyric. His words flow smoothly and he doesn’t overuse too many phrases (though several “waves” of various things did “wash over” many people).
Content (4/5): There was barely any language in this book, which was a nice change of JP’s work. It wasn’t necessary, either. It just goes to show that the point can be made—and made well—without filthy language. There was a little bit of sex but it wasn’t too graphic, nor was it frequent.
Reader (4/5): I really liked the voice of the reader for this book. I’ve heard some pretty awful ones before, I’ll say that much right now! But Joe’s voice was perfect for this book. The only thing I didn’t like were the voices he put with the characters—the accents were pretty lousy, and when he put on a “fake” voice for the child characters, it just sounded a little silly. I was glad when Tut got old enough that he didn’t have to do that anymore!
Recommendation: Ages 16+ to lovers of fiction, history, nonfiction, thrillers, mystery, or to any James-Patterson-addict.
Erika (17788 KP) rated The Woman Who Would Be King: Hatshepsut's Rise to Power in Ancient Egypt in Books
Feb 22, 2018
This was a big DNF from me. I had many problems with this book. Yes, Cooney did disclaim that a lot of this book was conjecture, but it was worse than I was expecting. This book reminded me of James Patterson's book on King Tut that claimed to be non-fiction.
I quit 1/3rd into this book. I got tired of the maybe, likely, probably, it should have just been a fiction novel.
I'm also not a fan of the feminist theory of history, which was exactly what this was. Of that whole third of the book I got through, there was zero information presented that I didn't already know.
I think I'm so irritated by this book because I've been wanting to read it since it came out in 2015. I wait three years for this?!? Woof.
I quit 1/3rd into this book. I got tired of the maybe, likely, probably, it should have just been a fiction novel.
I'm also not a fan of the feminist theory of history, which was exactly what this was. Of that whole third of the book I got through, there was zero information presented that I didn't already know.
I think I'm so irritated by this book because I've been wanting to read it since it came out in 2015. I wait three years for this?!? Woof.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Lion King (1994) in Movies
Mar 17, 2020
Hakuna Matata
The Lion King- such a classic. Its perfect, amazing, fantasic and phenomenal and than thier just had to remake last year, live action style because of $$$ and have beyonce voice one of the charcters and have a second soundtrack with rap stars??? Anyways, the songs are so excellent, you have... "Circle of Life", "I Just Cant Wait to be King", "Be Perpared", "Hakuna Matata" and "Can't You Feel The Love Tonight".
The plot: This Disney animated feature follows the adventures of the young lion Simba (Jonathan Taylor Thomas), the heir of his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones). Simba's wicked uncle, Scar (Jeremy Irons), plots to usurp Mufasa's throne by luring father and son into a stampede of wildebeests. But Simba escapes, and only Mufasa is killed. Simba returns as an adult (Matthew Broderick) to take back his homeland from Scar with the help of his friends Timon (Nathan Lane) and Pumbaa (Ernie Sabella).
A classic film.
The plot: This Disney animated feature follows the adventures of the young lion Simba (Jonathan Taylor Thomas), the heir of his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones). Simba's wicked uncle, Scar (Jeremy Irons), plots to usurp Mufasa's throne by luring father and son into a stampede of wildebeests. But Simba escapes, and only Mufasa is killed. Simba returns as an adult (Matthew Broderick) to take back his homeland from Scar with the help of his friends Timon (Nathan Lane) and Pumbaa (Ernie Sabella).
A classic film.
Diego V (43 KP) rated The Shawshank Redemption (1994) in Movies
Mar 24, 2019
The story is amazing showing how prison life is for some of the inmates from Shawshank and Andy dealing with it. (3 more)
The characters like Andy, Red, Samuel, and Byron are memorable. Andy is a character we want to see succeed as well as Red with his charm. While Samuel the warden and Byron the guard are ruthless.
The acting from Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman, Bob Gunton, Clancy Brown, and James Whitmore do an amazing job with their acting and making the characters memorable
The production design from the Shawshank Prison is rally great and the music is amazing.
Shawshank Redemption
The film has a great story, memorable characters, incredible acting, and impressive production design as well as amazing music. This is one of the best films I have ever seen and I watch it whenever it comes on and I also have the DVD. If you’re a fan of Stephen King this movie will make you satisfied as well as non Stephen King fans who never read his books like me.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Misery (1990) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
Punishment and Toture
Misery- is one of my favorite Stephen King Novel's turned into a movie. James Caan and Kathy Bates are perfect in this movie. Its twisted, horrorfying, suspenseful, mysterious and more.
After a serious car crash, novelist Paul Sheldon (James Caan) is rescued by former nurse Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates), who claims to be his biggest fan. Annie brings him to her remote cabin to recover, where her obsession takes a dark turn when she discovers Sheldon is killing off her favorite character from his novels. As Sheldon devises plans for escape, Annie grows increasingly controlling, even violent, as she forces the author to shape his writing to suit her twisted fantasies.
I would highly reccordmend watching this movie. It is a excellent movie.
After a serious car crash, novelist Paul Sheldon (James Caan) is rescued by former nurse Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates), who claims to be his biggest fan. Annie brings him to her remote cabin to recover, where her obsession takes a dark turn when she discovers Sheldon is killing off her favorite character from his novels. As Sheldon devises plans for escape, Annie grows increasingly controlling, even violent, as she forces the author to shape his writing to suit her twisted fantasies.
I would highly reccordmend watching this movie. It is a excellent movie.
ClareR (5589 KP) rated The Queens Lady in Books
Dec 8, 2022
The Queens Lady is the second in the Queens of the Tower series, and picks up the Joan Vaux story where it left off in the last book. She’s now Lady Joan Guildford, and is Lady in Waiting to Queen Elizabeth, the wife of Henry VII. It’s a privileged position and means that Joan is at Court when Prince Arthur dies and Prince Henry is named as heir. Joan acts as something of a go between with the King and Queen, but King Henry is a serious, dour man - and this isn’t improved when the Queen dies shortly after her son.
Joan no longer has a place at court, and her husband falls out of favour when his enemies gain considerable influence with the King.
It was really interesting to learn about the inner workings of the English court and the precarious line that courtiers had to tread. Joan also gave some insight into some significant historical events: the Field of the Cloth of Gold in France, Princess Margaret’s marriage to King James, the arrival of Catherine of Aragon, and accompanying Princess Mary to Paris when she marries King Louis.
I’m an absolute sucker for historical fiction, and I loved the details and the very human, realistic style this book was written in. And I really liked Joan.
The ravens are a constant - after all, Joan is the Lady of the Ravens. Bu they’re not as central to the storyline this time.
I don’t know whether this will just be a duology, or if there’s more to come, but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this book.
Highly recommended.
Joan no longer has a place at court, and her husband falls out of favour when his enemies gain considerable influence with the King.
It was really interesting to learn about the inner workings of the English court and the precarious line that courtiers had to tread. Joan also gave some insight into some significant historical events: the Field of the Cloth of Gold in France, Princess Margaret’s marriage to King James, the arrival of Catherine of Aragon, and accompanying Princess Mary to Paris when she marries King Louis.
I’m an absolute sucker for historical fiction, and I loved the details and the very human, realistic style this book was written in. And I really liked Joan.
The ravens are a constant - after all, Joan is the Lady of the Ravens. Bu they’re not as central to the storyline this time.
I don’t know whether this will just be a duology, or if there’s more to come, but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this book.
Highly recommended.
Peter Segal recommended Young Frankenstein (1974) in Movies (curated)
Ian Anderson recommended Over-Nite Sensation by Frank Zappa in Music (curated)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Return of The King
The Lion King is a 2019 computer-animated musical movie directed and produced by Jon Favreau. It was written by Jeff Nathanson, and produced by Fairview Entertainment and Walt Disney Pictures and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Beyonce and James Earl Jones.
King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi rule over the animal kingdom with their pride of lions from Pride Rock, in the African Pride Lands. Things change with the birth of their son, Simba, the new Prince. Mufasa's younger brother, and former heir to the throne, Scar, covets the throne and plots to eliminate Mufasa and Simba, so he may become king. The battle for Pride Rock is filled with betrayal, tragedy and drama and circumstances are forever changed after the events of the stampede.
This movie was really good, but of course it was. The original Lion King was one of Disney's best animated films to date. There was a lot of build up to the release of this movie, with fans every anticipating when they could finally see this story on the big screen again. Jon Favreau did not disappoint, but there was a lot of negativity and bad review scores when it first released. I think the big problem was that in all the previews/trailers leading up to the movie coming out showed how realistic the animals looked and how they were able to recreate iconic scenes in stunning state of the art CGI, but they never showed the animals talking or singing. This for me made it difficult to get fully immersed in the film when the very realistic animals began talking and singing, but eventually it went away or I got used to it a couple minutes into the movie. Also they changed very little in this remake and it was almost literally a shot for shot or scene for scene recreation of the original Lion King, which I think bothered the critics. I personally liked little changes they made that I felt made the movie just a little bit better, like the dialogue between Mufasa's and Scar implying Mufasa's gave him the scar, Zimbabwe catching up with Nala for the journey back to Pride Rock, and Nala leading the female lions in the fight against the hyenas. I also thought it was cool how they made it more clear that one of the hyenas was the leader and it was the female and the scene where Scar makes the deal with them. Overall though I feel like they could have shown more emotion in the animals if they had chosen a style that was so detailed to look so realistic. I give this movie a 7/10. It is worth watching for nostalgia and to see it in theaters is a treat, especially when getting children or younger family members to see it for the first time, but the original is still the better film.
King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi rule over the animal kingdom with their pride of lions from Pride Rock, in the African Pride Lands. Things change with the birth of their son, Simba, the new Prince. Mufasa's younger brother, and former heir to the throne, Scar, covets the throne and plots to eliminate Mufasa and Simba, so he may become king. The battle for Pride Rock is filled with betrayal, tragedy and drama and circumstances are forever changed after the events of the stampede.
This movie was really good, but of course it was. The original Lion King was one of Disney's best animated films to date. There was a lot of build up to the release of this movie, with fans every anticipating when they could finally see this story on the big screen again. Jon Favreau did not disappoint, but there was a lot of negativity and bad review scores when it first released. I think the big problem was that in all the previews/trailers leading up to the movie coming out showed how realistic the animals looked and how they were able to recreate iconic scenes in stunning state of the art CGI, but they never showed the animals talking or singing. This for me made it difficult to get fully immersed in the film when the very realistic animals began talking and singing, but eventually it went away or I got used to it a couple minutes into the movie. Also they changed very little in this remake and it was almost literally a shot for shot or scene for scene recreation of the original Lion King, which I think bothered the critics. I personally liked little changes they made that I felt made the movie just a little bit better, like the dialogue between Mufasa's and Scar implying Mufasa's gave him the scar, Zimbabwe catching up with Nala for the journey back to Pride Rock, and Nala leading the female lions in the fight against the hyenas. I also thought it was cool how they made it more clear that one of the hyenas was the leader and it was the female and the scene where Scar makes the deal with them. Overall though I feel like they could have shown more emotion in the animals if they had chosen a style that was so detailed to look so realistic. I give this movie a 7/10. It is worth watching for nostalgia and to see it in theaters is a treat, especially when getting children or younger family members to see it for the first time, but the original is still the better film.