Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019 (Updated Aug 11, 2019)
The monsters. (1 more)
Special effects - blend of CG and practical.
The Pale Lady. (2 more)
Basic rinse and repeat horror formula.
No emotional attachment to characters.
Fishing for Turds
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is probably considered the introduction to horror fiction for anyone who was in middle school in the mid to late 1990s. I distinctly remember checking out at least one of the books before I was a teenager, but the story that has stuck with me multiple decades later has and always will be, “The Red Spot.” The thing about the Scary Stories books is that they were just these random collections of creepy tales meant to make the reader anxious, uneasy, or even frightened, so the fact that somebody attempted to make a coherent film out of a jumbled mix of stories from all three books is kind of incredible.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy (Rooney Mara) thinks she's suffering from an average case of nightmares that are causing her to lose sleep. A burned man with blades on his fingers haunts her dreams. She doesn't think much of it until her friends start getting picked off one by one while they sleep and are dreaming of the same man. Something happened during their childhood that connects them to this man that their parents are trying to cover up. As far as anyone else is concerned, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) never existed. What their parents refuse to believe is that Freddy exists in the dreams of their children causing them to remember their past and kill them. Now it's up to Nancy and her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner) to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit before they become Freddy's next victims.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
Lee (2222 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Strong ending to a fantastic trilogy
Finally, after a recent lengthy spell of average or just plain disappointing blockbusters, along comes War for the Planet of the Apes to show them how it's done. The first two movies in this new trilogy have been consistently strong and enjoyable and War continues to deliver on that high quality, proving itself to be the best of the trilogy.
Despite it's name, there's not really a huge amount of war on show here. Unless of course we're referring to the inner conflict and turmoil experienced by Caesar. The movie begins with some human soldiers sneaking through the woods to try and take out the apes. They get their asses kicked and Caesar lets a few of them go in the hope that their crazed colonel (Woody Harrelson) will see just how merciful the apes are and understand that they just want to live their lives in peace and harmony. Unfortunately, things don't quite go to plan and the colonel returns later that night with a surprise attack on the apes home while they're sleeping. Some heavy ape casualties are sustained, and Caesar is pissed. Grief stricken, and out for revenge, he wants to go in search of the colonel while the rest of the apes head off to a potential new home out in the desert.
From there our story shifts down a gear, as Caesar and a small number of his trusted allies set off on horseback to track down the colonel. By this point though, you've already forgotten that these are not real apes, such is the exceptional quality of the effects on display here. The emotions are all there and the detail is perfect, totally believable. To all intents and purposes, these are real apes, and what they're experiencing feels real.
Along the way they manage pick up a young orphan mute girl and a former zoo ape called 'Bad Ape', who manages to provide much of the scarce humour found throughout the movie. When they do find the colonel and his base, the movie becomes more a prisoner of war, great escape style story rather than all out war. Yet it still manages to be extremely intense, highly emotional and hugely enjoyable.
By now, Andy Serkis and his team of performers are experts at bringing these apes to life and Caesar has now developed further than any other character in the trilogy. Serkis portrays equal amounts of rage and compassion beautifully, aided by the pixel perfect rendering of Caesar. Harrelson is the only human of any real note here, despite the large number of human soldiers under his command, and he manages to bring just the right amount of intense crazy and depth to the role.
The trilogy comes to a pretty satisfying and emotional close, with potential for further Apes movies. Overall though this has proved to be one of the strongest trilogies I've seen in a long time.
Despite it's name, there's not really a huge amount of war on show here. Unless of course we're referring to the inner conflict and turmoil experienced by Caesar. The movie begins with some human soldiers sneaking through the woods to try and take out the apes. They get their asses kicked and Caesar lets a few of them go in the hope that their crazed colonel (Woody Harrelson) will see just how merciful the apes are and understand that they just want to live their lives in peace and harmony. Unfortunately, things don't quite go to plan and the colonel returns later that night with a surprise attack on the apes home while they're sleeping. Some heavy ape casualties are sustained, and Caesar is pissed. Grief stricken, and out for revenge, he wants to go in search of the colonel while the rest of the apes head off to a potential new home out in the desert.
From there our story shifts down a gear, as Caesar and a small number of his trusted allies set off on horseback to track down the colonel. By this point though, you've already forgotten that these are not real apes, such is the exceptional quality of the effects on display here. The emotions are all there and the detail is perfect, totally believable. To all intents and purposes, these are real apes, and what they're experiencing feels real.
Along the way they manage pick up a young orphan mute girl and a former zoo ape called 'Bad Ape', who manages to provide much of the scarce humour found throughout the movie. When they do find the colonel and his base, the movie becomes more a prisoner of war, great escape style story rather than all out war. Yet it still manages to be extremely intense, highly emotional and hugely enjoyable.
By now, Andy Serkis and his team of performers are experts at bringing these apes to life and Caesar has now developed further than any other character in the trilogy. Serkis portrays equal amounts of rage and compassion beautifully, aided by the pixel perfect rendering of Caesar. Harrelson is the only human of any real note here, despite the large number of human soldiers under his command, and he manages to bring just the right amount of intense crazy and depth to the role.
The trilogy comes to a pretty satisfying and emotional close, with potential for further Apes movies. Overall though this has proved to be one of the strongest trilogies I've seen in a long time.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth in Books
Sep 7, 2017
Amazing, easy-to-read memoir
Wow. Just wow. I woke up far earlier than I wanted to this morning, so I picked up one of the nonfiction books I had from the library, expecting it to put me back to sleep. Three hours later I was still awake, nearly done with the book, and absolutely enthralled. I’m not sure why I thought it would be otherwise – I’d been one of the millions fascinated with Hadfield’s videos and tweets when he was Commander of the ISS. His particular voice is very clear throughout this book. In 284 pages he takes us from his childhood, through his career path to becoming an astronaut, to his 5 months in the International Space Station, and back home. Nothing felt rushed, nothing felt like it didn’t get the attention it deserved. I’m pretty sure this is going to be one of my favorite books of 2017 – I have several months to read more things, but this book just absolutely blew me away.
It does appeal to how I like to read about science, though. I love reading about scientists. How they worked, how they made their discoveries, the paths they took. Who they were. I’m less interested in the actual science. This is part of why I loved A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, so much. I borrowed that book from the library and read it cover to cover, fascinated. Finally had to buy my own copy.
Hadfield took space exploration and made it accessible to everyone. According to the book, he didn’t even quite realize how big of an impact he was making at first. But between tweeting pictures from the ISS, making videos of how different life was in space, and making music videos, he really did become the most well-known astronaut of our generation. I remember putting his video of I.S.S. (Is Somebody Singing) on repeat when it came out – and it STILL gives me chills today.
He only briefly talked about Is Somebody Singing in the book, which I found surprising, given it was the one that hit me the hardest. He spent more time talking about filming and recording Space Oddity – which does have 36 million views, to I.S.S.’s 2 million. So I suppose that makes sense! (I'm going to attach both videos to the book page.)
One thing he keeps coming back to in his book is his philosophy of trying to be a zero. That doesn’t sound very ambitious on the surface – but what he means is you can be one of three things in a group. You can be a negative impact (a -1) a neutral impact (a zero) or a positive impact (a +1). If you try to be a +1, it’s far likelier that you’ll try too hard, fuck up, and instead become a negative impact. So aim to be a zero. And most of the time you’ll wind up as a positive impact. I thought that was a very unique philosophy.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
It does appeal to how I like to read about science, though. I love reading about scientists. How they worked, how they made their discoveries, the paths they took. Who they were. I’m less interested in the actual science. This is part of why I loved A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, so much. I borrowed that book from the library and read it cover to cover, fascinated. Finally had to buy my own copy.
Hadfield took space exploration and made it accessible to everyone. According to the book, he didn’t even quite realize how big of an impact he was making at first. But between tweeting pictures from the ISS, making videos of how different life was in space, and making music videos, he really did become the most well-known astronaut of our generation. I remember putting his video of I.S.S. (Is Somebody Singing) on repeat when it came out – and it STILL gives me chills today.
He only briefly talked about Is Somebody Singing in the book, which I found surprising, given it was the one that hit me the hardest. He spent more time talking about filming and recording Space Oddity – which does have 36 million views, to I.S.S.’s 2 million. So I suppose that makes sense! (I'm going to attach both videos to the book page.)
One thing he keeps coming back to in his book is his philosophy of trying to be a zero. That doesn’t sound very ambitious on the surface – but what he means is you can be one of three things in a group. You can be a negative impact (a -1) a neutral impact (a zero) or a positive impact (a +1). If you try to be a +1, it’s far likelier that you’ll try too hard, fuck up, and instead become a negative impact. So aim to be a zero. And most of the time you’ll wind up as a positive impact. I thought that was a very unique philosophy.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Nicole Hadley (380 KP) rated Breathe, Annie, Breathe in Books
Jun 14, 2018
<a href="https://awindowintobooks.wordpress.com">Full Review</a>
This story, Breathe, Annie, Breathe, is beautifully written. It is a story about running but beyond that it is a story about death, healing and new beginnings. In order to reach the point where healing can occur and new beginnings happen Annie must first take risks. She is scared about taking risks and loosing someone she cares deeply about but taking risks is part of the healing process. Throughout reading this story, my emotions were all over. I was sad, I was worried, but most of all I was happy. I was happy for Annie. Annie's happiness leaped off the page.
When I started to read this book and discovered it was about running, I suddenly became very interested in the story. I have been running competitively for 18 years (Whoa! That's a long time). In all my years running I have never read a book that is so much about running. It made me happy that someone finally did! Like Annie, running clears my head. If you're worried about something, go running. If you're sad, go running. If you're happy, go running. Running de-stresses your life. I appreciated the fact that Kenneally really captured the atmosphere of running, and especially the running "high." Another aspect I appreciated is how Kenneally shows issues that come with running and through the story the readers learn advice that will help; such as drinking gatorade to replace electrolytes, or using vasaline for chafing. While Annie is not someone who grew up running, she had a goal and took the proper and necessary steps to accomplish that goal. In the process she found herself.
The goal was to run and finish a marathon, a goal her boyfriend Kyle had set out to do but was unable to accomplish because of his death. Kyle wanted to run a marathon but is unable to so Annie decides to run a marathon in Kyles honor even though at the start she could barely run a half mile. Kenneally does not immediately tell her readers why Kyle died. In fact it takes most of the book to know but part of the mystery is what keeps the story going.
Kenneally does an excellent job of developing each character and showing their relationship with Annie; even repairing some estranged relationships. One of the characters, Jeremiah (Jere), has a very special place in Annie's heart and ultimately helps the healing process not by forcing her to heal but by first being a friend (a distraction) and later a boyfriend who helps her to take risks, to do things that scare her just a little. The relationship portrayed between Jere and Annie is realistic. I love that their relationship started as friends but developed to something more.
I recommend this book to anyone who like young adult (YA) literature, love story and most of all an intertwinning of sports and relationships. The story will cause you to look at your relationships and maybe you'll be motivated to train and run a marathon.
This story, Breathe, Annie, Breathe, is beautifully written. It is a story about running but beyond that it is a story about death, healing and new beginnings. In order to reach the point where healing can occur and new beginnings happen Annie must first take risks. She is scared about taking risks and loosing someone she cares deeply about but taking risks is part of the healing process. Throughout reading this story, my emotions were all over. I was sad, I was worried, but most of all I was happy. I was happy for Annie. Annie's happiness leaped off the page.
When I started to read this book and discovered it was about running, I suddenly became very interested in the story. I have been running competitively for 18 years (Whoa! That's a long time). In all my years running I have never read a book that is so much about running. It made me happy that someone finally did! Like Annie, running clears my head. If you're worried about something, go running. If you're sad, go running. If you're happy, go running. Running de-stresses your life. I appreciated the fact that Kenneally really captured the atmosphere of running, and especially the running "high." Another aspect I appreciated is how Kenneally shows issues that come with running and through the story the readers learn advice that will help; such as drinking gatorade to replace electrolytes, or using vasaline for chafing. While Annie is not someone who grew up running, she had a goal and took the proper and necessary steps to accomplish that goal. In the process she found herself.
The goal was to run and finish a marathon, a goal her boyfriend Kyle had set out to do but was unable to accomplish because of his death. Kyle wanted to run a marathon but is unable to so Annie decides to run a marathon in Kyles honor even though at the start she could barely run a half mile. Kenneally does not immediately tell her readers why Kyle died. In fact it takes most of the book to know but part of the mystery is what keeps the story going.
Kenneally does an excellent job of developing each character and showing their relationship with Annie; even repairing some estranged relationships. One of the characters, Jeremiah (Jere), has a very special place in Annie's heart and ultimately helps the healing process not by forcing her to heal but by first being a friend (a distraction) and later a boyfriend who helps her to take risks, to do things that scare her just a little. The relationship portrayed between Jere and Annie is realistic. I love that their relationship started as friends but developed to something more.
I recommend this book to anyone who like young adult (YA) literature, love story and most of all an intertwinning of sports and relationships. The story will cause you to look at your relationships and maybe you'll be motivated to train and run a marathon.
Screens VNC
Productivity and Business
App
Leave your computer behind and travel light! Screens lets you connect back to your Mac, Windows or...
Learning CoreOS
Smiler S. Kingston and Shantanu Agrawal
Book
Your one-stop guide for building, configuring, maintaining, and deploying one of the world's fastest...
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated The Sworn Virgin in Books
Sep 28, 2017
Great historical detail, but falls short
So what I really liked the most about the book is the historical background and aspect. It’s rich in detail and sheds a light on the customs in Albania. I loved the descriptions of the setting, the clothing especially and how family life was at the time. Despite that Eleanora lived differently from others in the village, traditions are deep rooted, strong and followed to the exact detail. It’s all about maintaining family honor and if disgraced, the way to gain it back is likely with someone killing the other from the rival family that did you wrong. It’s pretty harsh and during that time doesn’t give much voice to women in general, but Eleanora’s personality is strong and admirable even though she’s pretty much a daddy’s girl (which helps her let her be who she wants to be).
The first half of the book was great and got the reading going pretty quickly. It wasn’t until the last third of the novel where things bog down and I was afraid of this: the moment the ‘man of the her dreams’ came into the story. Then I was instantly reminded as to why I hated “Memoirs of a Geisha” so much and this mirrors it. Holy mother. The guy was the sun, moon and stars for Eleanora. I kind of get it after what happened to her dad but for crying out loud I was rooting for Eleanora for taking the vow and being strong. All it takes is an Adonis to break that all down. Eleanora then takes a complete 360 and becomes a mooncalf.
I lost admiration after her treatment of Meria. I get it. Meria shouldn’t have done that nonsense because she’s all obsessed with family honor and had Eleanora’s best interest even though it was far from beneficial. I thought her treatment was excessive to the point of abuse and cruelty and I felt like jumping in and giving Eleanora the beat down for her stupidities.
Then Eleanora’s mood swings go from pity party to guilt and goes back and forth for what seemed like the entire last third of the novel and it got tiresome to read. You know Eleanora, you could have solved all this if you JUST. TELL. HIM.
And when she does. Your patience is done with the book and depending how you found the book you either breathe a sigh in relief or roll your eyes because it took about 50 pages to get Eleanora to smarten up and the book would have ended sooner than later.
I liked the book at first, but it just didn’t hold it for me. The pity trips, and the self torment Eleanora goes through is just too much and made up a good half of the novel. I wish it could have been better because the historical aspect was excellent.
The first half of the book was great and got the reading going pretty quickly. It wasn’t until the last third of the novel where things bog down and I was afraid of this: the moment the ‘man of the her dreams’ came into the story. Then I was instantly reminded as to why I hated “Memoirs of a Geisha” so much and this mirrors it. Holy mother. The guy was the sun, moon and stars for Eleanora. I kind of get it after what happened to her dad but for crying out loud I was rooting for Eleanora for taking the vow and being strong. All it takes is an Adonis to break that all down. Eleanora then takes a complete 360 and becomes a mooncalf.
I lost admiration after her treatment of Meria. I get it. Meria shouldn’t have done that nonsense because she’s all obsessed with family honor and had Eleanora’s best interest even though it was far from beneficial. I thought her treatment was excessive to the point of abuse and cruelty and I felt like jumping in and giving Eleanora the beat down for her stupidities.
Then Eleanora’s mood swings go from pity party to guilt and goes back and forth for what seemed like the entire last third of the novel and it got tiresome to read. You know Eleanora, you could have solved all this if you JUST. TELL. HIM.
And when she does. Your patience is done with the book and depending how you found the book you either breathe a sigh in relief or roll your eyes because it took about 50 pages to get Eleanora to smarten up and the book would have ended sooner than later.
I liked the book at first, but it just didn’t hold it for me. The pity trips, and the self torment Eleanora goes through is just too much and made up a good half of the novel. I wish it could have been better because the historical aspect was excellent.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated I, Tonya (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Most people when they hear the name Tonya Harding immediately have images of Nancy Kerrigan holding her knee and crying out “Why?” over and over again come to their minds. They may even think of Harding herself crying to a panel of judges about the state of the laces on her skates during Olympic competition. Her name and image became a point of ridicule and shame. She became the butt of jokes throughout the 90s and a never-ending punchline. People were not sympathetic to her and were not willing to hear her story. She was condemned to being the monster that we convinced ourselves that she was. The film I, Tonya sheds light onto who this woman was in demonstrating the complexities of her upbringing, years of abuse at the hands of her mother and later her husband. Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad, Wolf of Wall Street) stars as Tonya Harding, the disgraced Olympic figure skater.
I Tonya, takes audiences deep into the world that Tonya Harding experiences. We see the heartache, we bear witness to the brutal violence and abuse she suffers. Audiences find themselves rooting for Tonya to break out and become a success. The film, based on interviews, court testimony, and sports and news footage allows us all to have a greater picture of exactly who Tonya was. It points out in a mixture of humor, terror, and realism what the public got wrong about her and how we all became her worst abusers. The public wanted her to not only fail, but to fail miserably as most had fallen in love with her competitor and the victim of an attack committed in Tonya’s name. I Tonya, through brutal honesty shows us how someone who is already flawed due to their appearance, presentation, or lack of polish can quickly become villainized because they do not fit our description of innocent or are seen as someone we want representing us. The true reality of I, Tonya is that the film is a reflection in the mirror. It is one of the most honest representations of what the human, and more specifically, the American experience is. You have successes and failures, but despite this, we are recognized for the worst actions that are linked to our names and images.
I, Tonya takes the best elements of Mommy Dearest, Blades of Glory, Black Swan, and Sleeping With The Enemy in order to create a sports biopic that audiences will not realize they needed until they find themselves walking out of the theater. Margot Robbie, Allison Janney (Mom, The Help, Juno), and Sebastian Stan (Captain America: Civil War) will have audiences angered, elated, and heartbroken as they take audiences on a full tour of their emotions. I, Tonya is an instant classic that will capture audiences with its storytelling and demonstrate that Tonya Harding’s life is much more than a one-liner.
I Tonya, takes audiences deep into the world that Tonya Harding experiences. We see the heartache, we bear witness to the brutal violence and abuse she suffers. Audiences find themselves rooting for Tonya to break out and become a success. The film, based on interviews, court testimony, and sports and news footage allows us all to have a greater picture of exactly who Tonya was. It points out in a mixture of humor, terror, and realism what the public got wrong about her and how we all became her worst abusers. The public wanted her to not only fail, but to fail miserably as most had fallen in love with her competitor and the victim of an attack committed in Tonya’s name. I Tonya, through brutal honesty shows us how someone who is already flawed due to their appearance, presentation, or lack of polish can quickly become villainized because they do not fit our description of innocent or are seen as someone we want representing us. The true reality of I, Tonya is that the film is a reflection in the mirror. It is one of the most honest representations of what the human, and more specifically, the American experience is. You have successes and failures, but despite this, we are recognized for the worst actions that are linked to our names and images.
I, Tonya takes the best elements of Mommy Dearest, Blades of Glory, Black Swan, and Sleeping With The Enemy in order to create a sports biopic that audiences will not realize they needed until they find themselves walking out of the theater. Margot Robbie, Allison Janney (Mom, The Help, Juno), and Sebastian Stan (Captain America: Civil War) will have audiences angered, elated, and heartbroken as they take audiences on a full tour of their emotions. I, Tonya is an instant classic that will capture audiences with its storytelling and demonstrate that Tonya Harding’s life is much more than a one-liner.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
World War I was called “The Great War” and “The War to End All Wars” as the sheer number of nations and continents involved in the conflict as well as the tremendous loss of life; was thought to be so horrific that war would become a thing of the past.
As we know this did not happen as a generation later the world was once again at war with even great death and destruction to follow. However in “1917” we see the conflict from the viewpoint of a lowly Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) who along with his friend Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message across enemy lines to warn advanced units to call of an attack due to an ambush being set by the Germans.
The duo are told that the enemy has pulled back and as such; the dreaded No Man’s Land between the opposing trenches are likely to be abandoned as well their approach to a town near their destination. With the phone lines down; the duo are the only option and they are at first shocked to learn that it would just the two of them.
As they make their way across a grim and corpse-laden battlefield, the audience as well as the two men get a look at the horrific conditions that combat took place under and how fallen individuals were left to decompose where they fell due to the entrenched and stagnant nature of Trench Warfare.
As complications mount, the two must face up to their greatest fears and challenges; driven by a sense of mission and purpose for a conflict they just want to see end so they can return home to their families.
Director Sam Mendes has crafted an Oscar Caliber film as it is gripping as it is breathtaking thanks to the amazing visuals. The contrast between the beauty of the landscape and the carnage of war has rarely been captured as well as it was in this film and the fact that Mendes had a hand in writing the story based on stories told by a relative really help to bring the full impact of the story home.
The film has some amazing sequences like sustained and extended shots where you wonder how Mendes was able to film scenes with so many things going on in one take as there is a scene near the start that looks as if it is an extended scene with no breaks or cutaways.
In the end the biggest selling point for the film is that it is a human drama at its core. While there is combat and action, they are not the focal points as much of the film centers around the young men and their conversations.
The film will stay with you after the credits roll and I consider “1917” to be one of the best films of 2019 and one not to be missed.
As we know this did not happen as a generation later the world was once again at war with even great death and destruction to follow. However in “1917” we see the conflict from the viewpoint of a lowly Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) who along with his friend Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message across enemy lines to warn advanced units to call of an attack due to an ambush being set by the Germans.
The duo are told that the enemy has pulled back and as such; the dreaded No Man’s Land between the opposing trenches are likely to be abandoned as well their approach to a town near their destination. With the phone lines down; the duo are the only option and they are at first shocked to learn that it would just the two of them.
As they make their way across a grim and corpse-laden battlefield, the audience as well as the two men get a look at the horrific conditions that combat took place under and how fallen individuals were left to decompose where they fell due to the entrenched and stagnant nature of Trench Warfare.
As complications mount, the two must face up to their greatest fears and challenges; driven by a sense of mission and purpose for a conflict they just want to see end so they can return home to their families.
Director Sam Mendes has crafted an Oscar Caliber film as it is gripping as it is breathtaking thanks to the amazing visuals. The contrast between the beauty of the landscape and the carnage of war has rarely been captured as well as it was in this film and the fact that Mendes had a hand in writing the story based on stories told by a relative really help to bring the full impact of the story home.
The film has some amazing sequences like sustained and extended shots where you wonder how Mendes was able to film scenes with so many things going on in one take as there is a scene near the start that looks as if it is an extended scene with no breaks or cutaways.
In the end the biggest selling point for the film is that it is a human drama at its core. While there is combat and action, they are not the focal points as much of the film centers around the young men and their conversations.
The film will stay with you after the credits roll and I consider “1917” to be one of the best films of 2019 and one not to be missed.