Search
Search results
PTL: The Rise and Fall of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker's Evangelical Empire
Book
In the early months of 1987 Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker had it all-a popular Christian talk show,...
Church of Marvels
Book
'A SKILLFUL TRIUMPH' Jessie Burton, author of The Miniaturist - 'IRRESISTIBLE' Emma Donoghue, author...
BookishWoo (317 KP) rated Impervious in Books
Jul 12, 2020
When I agreed to take part in the Love Books Group book tour, I honestly thought that I would be immersing myself in a new Fantasy fiction. That one genre I hold close to my heart, where I can truly lose myself in the pages and is my escapism from everyday life. Where the hero’s and heroines win through and live happily every after.
Don’t get me wrong, on the face of it, Impervious is a Fantasy story. You find yourself wrapped up in a Quest with cleverly thought out nods to legends we oh so love. King Arthur, Excalibur and The Lady of the Lake, are those that struck me the most. With bone chilling monsters thrown into the mix.
As I got further into it, I realised there is something underlying, running parallel that you need to scratch, no dig under the surface to find.
It’s that scab that you just have to pick at (no intentions to gross anyone out there, but its the best analogy I can think of at the moment)
It’s not until close to the end that I had that Eureka moment. It was at that moment my heart was wrenched from my chest and the full force of the story hit me like a ton of bricks.
I have no doubt that some of you will have you “Ah Ha” moment a lot earlier than me. I was so wrapped up in the quest that I literally could not see the woods for the trees. But that’s OKAY! I am glad I didn’t figure it out, it kinda would have spoilt it for me.
Trina our protagonist, who pretty much has the full focus throughout, with reason, is just so god damn likeable. Lets give it up for Girl Power!
She takes everything in her stride, or so you are led to believe. Im having to be so careful I don’t give anything away here!
With that said, I am going to just leave you with this……….
This is a well written book, with a truly intricate plot within a plot. Delving into the Psyche and coping mechanisms of a teenage girl. A story with a deep message!
I received my copy from Love Books Group, A.J. Hartley and Uclan Publishing in exchange for an honest review.
Don’t get me wrong, on the face of it, Impervious is a Fantasy story. You find yourself wrapped up in a Quest with cleverly thought out nods to legends we oh so love. King Arthur, Excalibur and The Lady of the Lake, are those that struck me the most. With bone chilling monsters thrown into the mix.
As I got further into it, I realised there is something underlying, running parallel that you need to scratch, no dig under the surface to find.
It’s that scab that you just have to pick at (no intentions to gross anyone out there, but its the best analogy I can think of at the moment)
It’s not until close to the end that I had that Eureka moment. It was at that moment my heart was wrenched from my chest and the full force of the story hit me like a ton of bricks.
I have no doubt that some of you will have you “Ah Ha” moment a lot earlier than me. I was so wrapped up in the quest that I literally could not see the woods for the trees. But that’s OKAY! I am glad I didn’t figure it out, it kinda would have spoilt it for me.
Trina our protagonist, who pretty much has the full focus throughout, with reason, is just so god damn likeable. Lets give it up for Girl Power!
She takes everything in her stride, or so you are led to believe. Im having to be so careful I don’t give anything away here!
With that said, I am going to just leave you with this……….
This is a well written book, with a truly intricate plot within a plot. Delving into the Psyche and coping mechanisms of a teenage girl. A story with a deep message!
I received my copy from Love Books Group, A.J. Hartley and Uclan Publishing in exchange for an honest review.
Black Man, White House: An Oral History of the Obama Years
Book
New York Times Bestseller (Humor) "The book everyone is laughing about!"--Joe Scarborough, Morning...
BookInspector (124 KP) rated A Pearl for My Mistress in Books
Sep 24, 2020
I would like to begin this review by saying that I really loved the cover of this book, it looks pleasant and very sophisticated, another thing which intrigued me, was the lesbian relationship in 1930th England.
The characters in this novel are very interesting, sophisticated and at the same time very believable and down to earth. The whole book was mainly told from Lady Lucy’s, Hester’s (the maid) and Sophie’s (Hester’s sister) perspectives. I really liked that author chose multiple perspectives, it allowed me to have a better insight into characters personalities and made the whole story more indulging. My favourite persona in this book was Hester. I liked her simplicity, pureness and adventurous heart.
The narrative of the book is filled with historical knowledge and politics. It was very clearly visible that author has a passion for history and she has done a great research for this novel. For me it wasn't a very easy read, there are a lot of things happening in this novel and a lot of politics involved, because of that I had to keep my concentration going to understand what was going on. However, I really enjoyed all the details which author shared about aristocratic life, their struggles and wish of Independence. I also loved the insight into maids world in that period, as most of the books I read was mostly set in the 19th century, and it was nice to compare how it changed during the time.
The writing style of this book is very rich and elegant, it reflected that particular era very nicely, and I felt the spirit of 1930th through the pages. The chapter length was quite long to my liking, even though it was divided into smaller parts. (Well, what can I say, I love short chapters…) The ending of the book concluded the book really nicely but still left me guessing where life will take Hester. So to conclude, it is a very interesting book about aristocrats and their lifestyle between the wars in England, filled with secrets, manipulations, and fear or support of new regiment. I would strongly recommend this book to all historical fiction readers and people who like politics. Enjoy :)
Was given this book by publisher and NetGalley for an honest review.
The characters in this novel are very interesting, sophisticated and at the same time very believable and down to earth. The whole book was mainly told from Lady Lucy’s, Hester’s (the maid) and Sophie’s (Hester’s sister) perspectives. I really liked that author chose multiple perspectives, it allowed me to have a better insight into characters personalities and made the whole story more indulging. My favourite persona in this book was Hester. I liked her simplicity, pureness and adventurous heart.
The narrative of the book is filled with historical knowledge and politics. It was very clearly visible that author has a passion for history and she has done a great research for this novel. For me it wasn't a very easy read, there are a lot of things happening in this novel and a lot of politics involved, because of that I had to keep my concentration going to understand what was going on. However, I really enjoyed all the details which author shared about aristocratic life, their struggles and wish of Independence. I also loved the insight into maids world in that period, as most of the books I read was mostly set in the 19th century, and it was nice to compare how it changed during the time.
The writing style of this book is very rich and elegant, it reflected that particular era very nicely, and I felt the spirit of 1930th through the pages. The chapter length was quite long to my liking, even though it was divided into smaller parts. (Well, what can I say, I love short chapters…) The ending of the book concluded the book really nicely but still left me guessing where life will take Hester. So to conclude, it is a very interesting book about aristocrats and their lifestyle between the wars in England, filled with secrets, manipulations, and fear or support of new regiment. I would strongly recommend this book to all historical fiction readers and people who like politics. Enjoy :)
Was given this book by publisher and NetGalley for an honest review.
Kim Pook (101 KP) rated The Prodigy (2019) in Movies
Sep 25, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
A woman is seen running away from something or someone and ends up being almost hit by an elderly driver, we discover the woman has had her hand cut off, how did this happen? Why did it happen?
Forward to the present day and a pregnant woman is going into early labour, in between scenes of her giving birth we see this guy who gets shot down by police, he is holding a severed hand (remember the lady at the beginning?)....
Within months of baby Miles being born, his mother starts to notice strange things such as not crying during his shots and even saying words. It is put down to him being a genius. However, he is not really a genius at all he noticeably quite evil. This is evident when he squashes a bug in his bare hands at 5 years old, harms his babysitter at age 8, and starts speaking a strange language in his sleep.
One day Miles end up receiving psychiatric help after beating a child in his class with a wrench. Nobody can understand what's going on though and it seems Miles is hearing voices in his head and reacting to what they tell him to do. Miles' mother Sarah is eventually informed that Miles has a spirit living inside of him and that spirit is dangerous, Sarah refuses to believe this at first but after a disturbing situation happens at home she begins to believe that it must be true and after a series of events, finally gets him help to try and rid him of the evil inside of him.
I do find it shocking sometimes what they get young children to say in movies, but especially in this one. Considering the type of movie it is though its understandable and the boy who plays Miles does a fantastic job, down to the facial expressions, so you always know when it is Miles and when it's the spirit.
The movie very much reminds me of 'orphan' - another film with an evil adult/child. The ending was quite a bummer though and makes everything that happened in the movie a complete waste of time. It was interesting watching it unfold though and the end does leave it open for a sequel.
Forward to the present day and a pregnant woman is going into early labour, in between scenes of her giving birth we see this guy who gets shot down by police, he is holding a severed hand (remember the lady at the beginning?)....
Within months of baby Miles being born, his mother starts to notice strange things such as not crying during his shots and even saying words. It is put down to him being a genius. However, he is not really a genius at all he noticeably quite evil. This is evident when he squashes a bug in his bare hands at 5 years old, harms his babysitter at age 8, and starts speaking a strange language in his sleep.
One day Miles end up receiving psychiatric help after beating a child in his class with a wrench. Nobody can understand what's going on though and it seems Miles is hearing voices in his head and reacting to what they tell him to do. Miles' mother Sarah is eventually informed that Miles has a spirit living inside of him and that spirit is dangerous, Sarah refuses to believe this at first but after a disturbing situation happens at home she begins to believe that it must be true and after a series of events, finally gets him help to try and rid him of the evil inside of him.
I do find it shocking sometimes what they get young children to say in movies, but especially in this one. Considering the type of movie it is though its understandable and the boy who plays Miles does a fantastic job, down to the facial expressions, so you always know when it is Miles and when it's the spirit.
The movie very much reminds me of 'orphan' - another film with an evil adult/child. The ending was quite a bummer though and makes everything that happened in the movie a complete waste of time. It was interesting watching it unfold though and the end does leave it open for a sequel.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Dane Cook: Vicious Circle (2006) in Movies
Dec 5, 2020 (Updated Dec 6, 2020)
DANEgerous Edition
Less a stand-up show and more an event where you get to watch a manic cokehead scream at the top of his lungs and convulse around a small circular stage in front of a packed, sports-arena-esque crowd for nearly 2 hours and 15 minutes - one of the most breathless and impossible-to-look-away-from things I've ever seen. Say what you will about him, but he'll die before he loses your attention - it felt like *I* burned calories after watching him writhe, sweat, and shriek about for this long. Before Chappelle's similarly hit-or-miss 𝘚𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘴 & 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, this was arguably the most divisive stand-up special out there - most people either swore by it as one of the greats, or lambasted it as a stain on the legacy of comedy itself. It's hard to remember, but there was a time Cook was a megastar - the same year this special aired he was listed in TIME Magazine's "Top 100 Most Influential People In the World" alongside industry titans Meryl Streep and George Clooney. Outside of maybe Bam Margera I don't think any other sole entertainer represented the crass ode to reckless debauchery that was the mid-2000s quite like this guy; it's beguilingly bizarre almost solely as a piece of a pop culture time capsule alone. Though on its own merits this shockingly holds up a lot more than expected, not always funny (does some cringe 2006 shit like having two women make out on stage while Dane watches for no reason and a rather uncomfortable segment where he seemingly makes a young lady flash her breasts onstage) but home to a satiable amount of hearty chuckles and an exuberant energy that can't be denied even well past the two hour mark. Laden with dead-on observations, colossal vulgarity, intense (and super idiosyncratic) physicality, oddly cerebral camerawork + editing, and guttural cries unlike any other set I've seen... then after all that he comes back on the stage with an acoustic guitar to fucking *sing* - this is the human body being put to its endurance test as a comedic performer. A great time even if some of the jokes get drawn out way past the point of repair - what I can only describe as unforgettable, often really fucking funny, spastically aroused hyperspecificity. Nearly top-to-bottom infectious in spite of its whiffs.
Less a stand-up show and more an event where you get to watch a manic cokehead scream at the top of his lungs and convulse around a small circular stage in front of a packed, sports-arena-esque crowd for nearly 2 hours and 15 minutes - one of the most breathless and impossible-to-look-away-from things I've ever seen. Say what you will about him, but he'll die before he loses your attention - it felt like *I* burned calories after watching him writhe, sweat, and shriek about for this long. Before Chappelle's similarly hit-or-miss 𝘚𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘴 & 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, this was arguably the most divisive stand-up special out there - most people either swore by it as one of the greats, or lambasted it as a stain on the legacy of comedy itself. It's hard to remember, but there was a time Cook was a megastar - the same year this special aired he was listed in TIME Magazine's "Top 100 Most Influential People In the World" alongside industry titans Meryl Streep and George Clooney. Outside of maybe Bam Margera I don't think any other sole entertainer represented the crass ode to reckless debauchery that was the mid-2000s quite like this guy; it's beguilingly bizarre almost solely as a piece of a pop culture time capsule alone. Though on its own merits this shockingly holds up a lot more than expected, not always funny (does some cringe 2006 shit like having two women make out on stage while Dane watches for no reason and a rather uncomfortable segment where he seemingly makes a young lady flash her breasts onstage) but home to a satiable amount of hearty chuckles and an exuberant energy that can't be denied even well past the two hour mark. Laden with dead-on observations, colossal vulgarity, intense (and super idiosyncratic) physicality, oddly cerebral camerawork + editing, and guttural cries unlike any other set I've seen... then after all that he comes back on the stage with an acoustic guitar to fucking *sing* - this is the human body being put to its endurance test as a comedic performer. A great time even if some of the jokes get drawn out way past the point of repair - what I can only describe as unforgettable, often really fucking funny, spastically aroused hyperspecificity. Nearly top-to-bottom infectious in spite of its whiffs.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
This one is pretty straightforward - The Thing (2011) is an ok film that is completely dwarfed by The Thing (1982) - honestly, fuck knows why it doesn't have a different title.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Frank Miller's Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
I think that I actually prefer A Dame to Kill For over the first Sin City...
Once again, it's a visual feast, and once again, has a damn fine cast.
Two of the stories here are (unless I'm mistaken) written for this film, rather than being adapted. One of them concentrates on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his incredible luck at gambling. This story serves as nothing more than to further highlight just how much of an asshole Senator Rourke (Powers Boothe) is, once again, acting as the films main big bad. It's effective enough and does what it sets out to do. The other story concentrates on Nancy (Jessica Alba) torn up and struggling with alcohol after what Rourke did to Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first movie, before enlisting the help of Marv (Mickey Rourke) to exact revenge. This one is a little more high stakes. By this point, you really want Rourke to face some really unfriendly justice, and it's fitting that Nancy be the one to dish it out.
However, the titular story is what holds everything together.
A Dame to Kill For, which is indeed adapted from the comics is fantastic. It takes up the majority of runtime, and follows pre Clive Owen looking Dwight (Josh Brolin) going toe to toe with the seductively powerful and dangerous Ava (Eva Green). Here is where we're in full blown prequel territory, learning how Dwight comes to look how he does in the original, his connections the the girls of Old Town, and how Manute (Dennis Haysbert) ends up with his fetching golden eyeball. The best character interactions happen here. Green and Brolin are both great, and easily steal the show. It also boasts some great action when Gail (Rosario Dawson) and Miho (Jamie Chung) return to fuck shit up, and is just an all round enjoyable segment that easily dwarfs the other two stories.
The cast also includes Ray Liota, Christopher Meloni, Jaime King, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Juno Temple, Julia Garner, and Lady Gaga, so yeah, pretty solid ensemble all in all!
Its a damn shame that ADTKF took as long as it did to materialise. The Sin City hype train had gone a bit quiet by the time it released, and it didn't get the credit it deserves, and is frequently discarded as an inferior film to it's predecessor when personally, I think there's a lot to love.
Once again, it's a visual feast, and once again, has a damn fine cast.
Two of the stories here are (unless I'm mistaken) written for this film, rather than being adapted. One of them concentrates on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his incredible luck at gambling. This story serves as nothing more than to further highlight just how much of an asshole Senator Rourke (Powers Boothe) is, once again, acting as the films main big bad. It's effective enough and does what it sets out to do. The other story concentrates on Nancy (Jessica Alba) torn up and struggling with alcohol after what Rourke did to Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first movie, before enlisting the help of Marv (Mickey Rourke) to exact revenge. This one is a little more high stakes. By this point, you really want Rourke to face some really unfriendly justice, and it's fitting that Nancy be the one to dish it out.
However, the titular story is what holds everything together.
A Dame to Kill For, which is indeed adapted from the comics is fantastic. It takes up the majority of runtime, and follows pre Clive Owen looking Dwight (Josh Brolin) going toe to toe with the seductively powerful and dangerous Ava (Eva Green). Here is where we're in full blown prequel territory, learning how Dwight comes to look how he does in the original, his connections the the girls of Old Town, and how Manute (Dennis Haysbert) ends up with his fetching golden eyeball. The best character interactions happen here. Green and Brolin are both great, and easily steal the show. It also boasts some great action when Gail (Rosario Dawson) and Miho (Jamie Chung) return to fuck shit up, and is just an all round enjoyable segment that easily dwarfs the other two stories.
The cast also includes Ray Liota, Christopher Meloni, Jaime King, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Juno Temple, Julia Garner, and Lady Gaga, so yeah, pretty solid ensemble all in all!
Its a damn shame that ADTKF took as long as it did to materialise. The Sin City hype train had gone a bit quiet by the time it released, and it didn't get the credit it deserves, and is frequently discarded as an inferior film to it's predecessor when personally, I think there's a lot to love.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 15, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
If it ain't broke
The second chapter of the extremely popular reboot of Stephen King's It is more of the same...and that's a good thing.
The first film feels like a ghost train, with creepy imagery, and well crafted jump scares that don't feel too cheap.
Chapter Two takes the same formula, and if anything, actually does more with it. Pennywise seams more brutal and unforgiving in his ways this time around.
Bill Skarsgård once again is great as Pennywise, sinister, whilst remaining weirdly charming, and sometimes sympathetic.
The fantastic child actors from the first film are present once again via flashbacks, and are just as likable, but as the bulk of Chapter Two is set 27 years later, these characters are now grown up and played by a whole host of incredibly well casted adults.
Bill Hader in particular is a highlight throughout. I always have time for James McAvoy as well, the guy is an hugely underrated actor.
The scares arrive thick and fast after a slow start where we're reintroduced to everyone - and they are mixed...some are genuinely unsettling (as is the tone for a lot of Chapter Two). The Paul Bunyun statue is a memorable moment, as is the creepy old lady scene from the trailers.
Some others are more tame, and some occasionally cartoony CGI take away from the scares themselves.
The climax of the film is pretty fun, as The Losers once again prepare to battle Pennywise, and it's once again, a truly memorable sequence.
The overall ending suffers slightly from Return of the King syndrome, and feels unessecarily drawn out at the end of an already lengthy film.
Another thing that didn't quite sit well with me was the opening scene - I understand that said scene is in the original novel, and it's a way of reintroducing us to Pennywise, but it felt out of place. Homophobia is still a huge issue in 2019, and there is nothing wrong with shouting about it. But the scene is cruel, and ultimately has no connection to the larger narrative.
Nevertheless, it's a very chilling and effective opening to the film.
The duo of new It films is modern horror done pretty well - unnerving and at times scary, whilst still being accessible to a wider audience.
Certainly worth watching them!
The first film feels like a ghost train, with creepy imagery, and well crafted jump scares that don't feel too cheap.
Chapter Two takes the same formula, and if anything, actually does more with it. Pennywise seams more brutal and unforgiving in his ways this time around.
Bill Skarsgård once again is great as Pennywise, sinister, whilst remaining weirdly charming, and sometimes sympathetic.
The fantastic child actors from the first film are present once again via flashbacks, and are just as likable, but as the bulk of Chapter Two is set 27 years later, these characters are now grown up and played by a whole host of incredibly well casted adults.
Bill Hader in particular is a highlight throughout. I always have time for James McAvoy as well, the guy is an hugely underrated actor.
The scares arrive thick and fast after a slow start where we're reintroduced to everyone - and they are mixed...some are genuinely unsettling (as is the tone for a lot of Chapter Two). The Paul Bunyun statue is a memorable moment, as is the creepy old lady scene from the trailers.
Some others are more tame, and some occasionally cartoony CGI take away from the scares themselves.
The climax of the film is pretty fun, as The Losers once again prepare to battle Pennywise, and it's once again, a truly memorable sequence.
The overall ending suffers slightly from Return of the King syndrome, and feels unessecarily drawn out at the end of an already lengthy film.
Another thing that didn't quite sit well with me was the opening scene - I understand that said scene is in the original novel, and it's a way of reintroducing us to Pennywise, but it felt out of place. Homophobia is still a huge issue in 2019, and there is nothing wrong with shouting about it. But the scene is cruel, and ultimately has no connection to the larger narrative.
Nevertheless, it's a very chilling and effective opening to the film.
The duo of new It films is modern horror done pretty well - unnerving and at times scary, whilst still being accessible to a wider audience.
Certainly worth watching them!