Search
Gratification in Gluttony (Passing Through Cafe #2)
6.0
Rate It
Book
When Jude entered The Passing Through Cafe, Toni thought he’d be nothing more than a fun night, a...
Urban Fantasy Rom-Com
The Rosie Project: No. 1: Don Tillman
8.3
Rate It
Book
The Rosie Project by Graeme Simsion is a story about love, life and lobster every...
TravelersWife4Life (31 KP) rated Network of Deceit in Books
Feb 22, 2021
Great Deductive Reasoning
Detective Amara Alvarez from the SAPD (San Antonio Police Department) Homicide brings us a great new case in Network of Deceit. From the first page, I was hooked on this story. I was a big fan of Collision of Lies the first book in this stand-alone series, for the character development Tom Threadgill uses, and how he walks us through the case just as if we were there asking the questions to figure out the case right along Detective Alvarez. Detective Alvarez has a light sense of humor, and she is a bit of a quirky character take this for instance: “[Detective Alvarez] heading home to Larry, her three-foot-long pet iguana”. I also love Tom Threadgill’s use of dry sarcastic humor and wit in the conversations between Detective Alvarez and Detective Jeremiah “Starsky” Peckham is it fun to read and adds another layer to the story.
This particular case was rife with speculation, suspense, and unanswered questions that left me guessing until the end. A true mystery in every sense of the word. We are shown every step in the case and it is not tv fast paced, it is realistic. Tom Threadgill gives accurate timelines for the turnaround on things like autopsy reports and toxicology reports, unlike most tv shows. I also really enjoyed the cybercrime aspects of the story and I thought that it was explained in an easy-to-understand way for anyone, even if you do not have any previous knowledge of cybercrimes.
I would suggest that you go back and read Collision of Lies before this one as it gives you more background on the characters and you would have a better understanding of the case the previous book covers that is mentioned a few times in this one. But this one can be read as a stand-alone since the whole case is started and wrapped up in this book. Overall, I truly loved this book, and the way Tom Threadgill moved the case along, and I am looking forward to what other adventures that Detective Alvarez takes me on. 5 out of 5 stars.
This particular case was rife with speculation, suspense, and unanswered questions that left me guessing until the end. A true mystery in every sense of the word. We are shown every step in the case and it is not tv fast paced, it is realistic. Tom Threadgill gives accurate timelines for the turnaround on things like autopsy reports and toxicology reports, unlike most tv shows. I also really enjoyed the cybercrime aspects of the story and I thought that it was explained in an easy-to-understand way for anyone, even if you do not have any previous knowledge of cybercrimes.
I would suggest that you go back and read Collision of Lies before this one as it gives you more background on the characters and you would have a better understanding of the case the previous book covers that is mentioned a few times in this one. But this one can be read as a stand-alone since the whole case is started and wrapped up in this book. Overall, I truly loved this book, and the way Tom Threadgill moved the case along, and I am looking forward to what other adventures that Detective Alvarez takes me on. 5 out of 5 stars.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Apr 29, 2019
Very Fun RomCom
When a fired journalist finds himself writing speeches for the Secretary of State, he also finds himself in over his head when he quickly falls for her. Anyone that’s read even a tenth of my reviews know how much I love genre films that try and bend said genre and do things differently, albeit slightly. It’s for that reason that I fell in love with Long Shot. I’d be surprised if you didn’t as well.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
In Long Shot, Seth Rogen plays the role of Fred Flarsky, a journalist committed to reporting on the right things, or at least his version of what’s right, anyway. He’s daft, but not stupid. Timid for the most part, but knows how to seize an opportunity when necessary. Charlize Theron is Charlotte Field the Secretary of State, a strong woman who stands up for herself, but also knows the necessity of “playing the game” sometimes. Charlotte and Fred work so well together because they are polar opposites, but also share some strange interests. I can’t lie, I’m a sucker for most roles Rogen plays. If Chris Hemsworth is a reminder that we need to hit the gym, Rogen is a reminder that your plain old average self will do just fine, thank you very much. He is the Every Man of everymen. You want Fred to succeed not just because he’s an underdog, but also because he’s cool as hell.
Charlotte is dope too, but in a different way. I love that she takes no crap, but also has a soft spot and a willingness to give others a chance. It wasn’t hard for either of these characters to win me over.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 2
The movie falters a bit here, at least in my opinion. I’m sure there may be others that feel differently, but I didn’t really feel much strong opposition over the course of the movie. I would elaborate, but will stop short here as I don’t want to give away too much of what too expect.
Genre: 9
As I kept thinking of what I would score this film on the drive home, I found new reasons to love the movie. When I look at a number of other movies in the genre, it definitely stacks up. it’s one of those movies you can watch regularly and not get bored.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 9
Director Jonathan Levine moves the story along at a smooth pace that is pretty consistent save for one or two “meh” spots along the way. It’s funny throughout and continues to make you laugh right as you start to get the sense things will die down. Fred is a bit of a wild card as well as you look forward to seeing what crazy crap he will get into next.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Great ending with a bit of a twist that really brought the funny. After watching this journey, I couldn’t have been more satisfied with how things ended up. Predictable yet perfect at the same time.
Overall: 83
I have no doubt you will have a fun time seeing Long Shot. Even if you feel like you’ve been down the road before or you know what’s waiting at the end of the road, see it anyway. There is a certain amount of originality here that makes the movie well worth the ride.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
In Long Shot, Seth Rogen plays the role of Fred Flarsky, a journalist committed to reporting on the right things, or at least his version of what’s right, anyway. He’s daft, but not stupid. Timid for the most part, but knows how to seize an opportunity when necessary. Charlize Theron is Charlotte Field the Secretary of State, a strong woman who stands up for herself, but also knows the necessity of “playing the game” sometimes. Charlotte and Fred work so well together because they are polar opposites, but also share some strange interests. I can’t lie, I’m a sucker for most roles Rogen plays. If Chris Hemsworth is a reminder that we need to hit the gym, Rogen is a reminder that your plain old average self will do just fine, thank you very much. He is the Every Man of everymen. You want Fred to succeed not just because he’s an underdog, but also because he’s cool as hell.
Charlotte is dope too, but in a different way. I love that she takes no crap, but also has a soft spot and a willingness to give others a chance. It wasn’t hard for either of these characters to win me over.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 2
The movie falters a bit here, at least in my opinion. I’m sure there may be others that feel differently, but I didn’t really feel much strong opposition over the course of the movie. I would elaborate, but will stop short here as I don’t want to give away too much of what too expect.
Genre: 9
As I kept thinking of what I would score this film on the drive home, I found new reasons to love the movie. When I look at a number of other movies in the genre, it definitely stacks up. it’s one of those movies you can watch regularly and not get bored.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 9
Director Jonathan Levine moves the story along at a smooth pace that is pretty consistent save for one or two “meh” spots along the way. It’s funny throughout and continues to make you laugh right as you start to get the sense things will die down. Fred is a bit of a wild card as well as you look forward to seeing what crazy crap he will get into next.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Great ending with a bit of a twist that really brought the funny. After watching this journey, I couldn’t have been more satisfied with how things ended up. Predictable yet perfect at the same time.
Overall: 83
I have no doubt you will have a fun time seeing Long Shot. Even if you feel like you’ve been down the road before or you know what’s waiting at the end of the road, see it anyway. There is a certain amount of originality here that makes the movie well worth the ride.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Widow's House in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Jess and Clare Martin met at Bailey College, in the Hudson River valley, but have been living in New York for years. Jess wrote a successful first novel not long after graduation, but that money has long been spent. He's been working on his second book for ages; it's long overdue, and he needs a new muse. So the two decide to move back to the Hudson River area, where Jess can focus on the book without distractions. They take on duties as caretakers at Riven House, the home of their former college professor, Monty. They can live in a nearby cottage in exchange for helping the elderly Monty with chores. But the setup has its own issues: it's Monty, after all, who wrote a review of Jess' first book that torments him to this day. And as they settle in, Clare begins to hear a baby crying at night and see shadowy figures around the pond of Monty's property. As she investigates local history, she thinks what she sees may be tied to the house's tormented past. The locals say the place is haunted and destroys everyone who stays there. Are Clare and Jess next?
You know how sometimes you start a novel and immediately know, from the first page, that you'll enjoy it? THE WIDOW'S HOUSE was that way for me. It sucked me in immediately and kept me interested throughout; I read it in about 24 hours. The book is filled with complicated characters, starting with Clare. You start to realize she's the ultimate unreliable narrator, but are never able to tell exactly how much. She appears unhappy with her selfish author husband and her marriage. She had a rough childhood--growing up in the Hudson Valley not far from Monty's estate, which has clearly affected the way she sees the world. The entire story is told from her point of view, and we're stuck with all events being filtered through her lens. It's genius really, and it is a refreshing change from so many novels lately that change narrators and time periods. You find yourself working and guessing with Clare as she unravels local history and the events unfolding at Riven House.
The novel is certainly told in the Gothic tradition. I first fell for Goodman via her excellent novel, [b:The Lake of Dead Languages|120274|The Lake of Dead Languages|Carol Goodman|http://images.gr-assets.com/books/1320554718s/120274.jpg|3159707], and this book reminded me of that one in some ways. Unlike some Gothic novels, you do not have to suspend much disbelief as the creepy events unfold around Clare and Jess. There are parts of this book that are incredibly spooky, and it's quite well-done. I loved that I was frantically flipping the pages, constantly second guessing everything and wondering what was happening. There are some great twists that shock you, even as you're still trying to figure things out in you're head (much like Clare). This novel will leave you guessing. It's crazy and confusing, but fascinating and incredibly hard to put down. It's completely enjoyable and stays with you after you've finished it, going over various plot points. Highly recommend.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 03/07/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
You know how sometimes you start a novel and immediately know, from the first page, that you'll enjoy it? THE WIDOW'S HOUSE was that way for me. It sucked me in immediately and kept me interested throughout; I read it in about 24 hours. The book is filled with complicated characters, starting with Clare. You start to realize she's the ultimate unreliable narrator, but are never able to tell exactly how much. She appears unhappy with her selfish author husband and her marriage. She had a rough childhood--growing up in the Hudson Valley not far from Monty's estate, which has clearly affected the way she sees the world. The entire story is told from her point of view, and we're stuck with all events being filtered through her lens. It's genius really, and it is a refreshing change from so many novels lately that change narrators and time periods. You find yourself working and guessing with Clare as she unravels local history and the events unfolding at Riven House.
The novel is certainly told in the Gothic tradition. I first fell for Goodman via her excellent novel, [b:The Lake of Dead Languages|120274|The Lake of Dead Languages|Carol Goodman|http://images.gr-assets.com/books/1320554718s/120274.jpg|3159707], and this book reminded me of that one in some ways. Unlike some Gothic novels, you do not have to suspend much disbelief as the creepy events unfold around Clare and Jess. There are parts of this book that are incredibly spooky, and it's quite well-done. I loved that I was frantically flipping the pages, constantly second guessing everything and wondering what was happening. There are some great twists that shock you, even as you're still trying to figure things out in you're head (much like Clare). This novel will leave you guessing. It's crazy and confusing, but fascinating and incredibly hard to put down. It's completely enjoyable and stays with you after you've finished it, going over various plot points. Highly recommend.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 03/07/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Missing Link (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
This really isn't a bad little film, it has its fun and implausible action, and you come away with a message of friendship for everyone to ponder on. It's obviously great Easter holiday fodder and it won't bore the parents, which is always half the battle with kids films.
Susan is the last of his kind and desperately wants to find the fabled yeti who he believes to be his distant cousins. He enlists Sir Lionel Frost to help him on his quest after reading about his escapades in finding long lost creatures.
It's a pretty star-studded cast with Zach Galifianakis and Hugh Jackman leading it up. There will be a lot of other voices you recognise, but for the most part they stay in the background.
Both of our leading men are really well cast and give their characters a much needed boost. They get some humour in various places, but I didn't feel like the script was fantastic overall.
Where Lionel and Susan were well cast, Adeline Fortnight really missed the spot for me. From the design of the character to that accent, whose origin was kind of non-descript, I couldn't help wondering why the role went to Zoe Saldana and not Salma Hayek.
Stephen Fry makes a wonderful bad guy. I've always loved his voicework this thankfully did not break that trend and he added some oomph to the proceedings.
The last cast member I want to mention is Emma Thompson as The Elder. I think she suffered the most with the script, "The people we don't want here are leaving! Force them to stay!" I'm sure that line was meant to be amusing, and it definitely could have been, but the way it wasn't backed up with anything to come across that way. She was woefully underused and her scenes were wholly inadequate for such a great talent.
I had to stop and weep for humanity a little, there are some comments on the internet where it appears that people don't get that this is stop-motion animation, with a few saying it all looked too simple. I cannot fault the work that was put into this, it's wonderfully done, even if I'm not a fan of the strangely pointed features. There's a brief glimpse in the trailer of a barroom brawl, look out for the whole scene in the film because it is probably the most impressive piece of work.
Despite my quibbles, this is genuinely a pleasant film to watch and I don't think many people will get to the end and grumble that they've wasted their time. I just worry that it's not quite good enough to be well remembered, it's in danger of being one of those films that makes me go "oh yeah, I remember that one, it's really good."
What you should do
If you're in need of an Easter activity then it's worth the trip to the cinema, and it's certainly worth catching when it's released for home viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
There's nothing in the film I'd particularly like to take home, but I wouldn't mind some of the patience and dedication that those animators must have to produce such wonderfully smooth motion.
Susan is the last of his kind and desperately wants to find the fabled yeti who he believes to be his distant cousins. He enlists Sir Lionel Frost to help him on his quest after reading about his escapades in finding long lost creatures.
It's a pretty star-studded cast with Zach Galifianakis and Hugh Jackman leading it up. There will be a lot of other voices you recognise, but for the most part they stay in the background.
Both of our leading men are really well cast and give their characters a much needed boost. They get some humour in various places, but I didn't feel like the script was fantastic overall.
Where Lionel and Susan were well cast, Adeline Fortnight really missed the spot for me. From the design of the character to that accent, whose origin was kind of non-descript, I couldn't help wondering why the role went to Zoe Saldana and not Salma Hayek.
Stephen Fry makes a wonderful bad guy. I've always loved his voicework this thankfully did not break that trend and he added some oomph to the proceedings.
The last cast member I want to mention is Emma Thompson as The Elder. I think she suffered the most with the script, "The people we don't want here are leaving! Force them to stay!" I'm sure that line was meant to be amusing, and it definitely could have been, but the way it wasn't backed up with anything to come across that way. She was woefully underused and her scenes were wholly inadequate for such a great talent.
I had to stop and weep for humanity a little, there are some comments on the internet where it appears that people don't get that this is stop-motion animation, with a few saying it all looked too simple. I cannot fault the work that was put into this, it's wonderfully done, even if I'm not a fan of the strangely pointed features. There's a brief glimpse in the trailer of a barroom brawl, look out for the whole scene in the film because it is probably the most impressive piece of work.
Despite my quibbles, this is genuinely a pleasant film to watch and I don't think many people will get to the end and grumble that they've wasted their time. I just worry that it's not quite good enough to be well remembered, it's in danger of being one of those films that makes me go "oh yeah, I remember that one, it's really good."
What you should do
If you're in need of an Easter activity then it's worth the trip to the cinema, and it's certainly worth catching when it's released for home viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
There's nothing in the film I'd particularly like to take home, but I wouldn't mind some of the patience and dedication that those animators must have to produce such wonderfully smooth motion.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Vanished in Books
Mar 18, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
In Vanished by Gillian Alice Lock time travel is not a scientific discovery but a natural phenomenon. This book also falls in a gray area between science fiction, historical fiction, and romance.
Andrea lives with her little dog, Muff, out in the country. She tries to live a structured life but since she works from home she finds herself giving in to cravings more often. Luckily Muff is extremely high energy for a little dog and requires Andrea to take her for long walks. One day Andrea makes plans with the neighbor guy for a date after Muff’s walk. The neighbor waits for her but she doesn't show up, for years.
During their walk Andrea and Muff finds themselves pulled into a dense yellow mist and when it dissipates things have changed. The area they are in looks familiar yet it is not the home they are used to, but instead, it looks more like pictures from a history book. Andrea draws a lot of attention to herself from the way she talks and dresses and soon finds herself with Father Jones. Through the Father, Andrea learns of Robert who also seems to have come from the future. Andrea manages to secure work along with room and board for herself and Robert at the home of William Farthing, a Lord. Sadly Andrea knows of the fate that is going to befall William and wars with herself about intervening. She also must come up with a decision if she wishes to return to her old life in the 21st century or try to keep her new one int the 17th.
I enjoyed how both positive and negative aspects of the 17th century are addressed. The dirty and poor living conditions are clearly depicted, as are the differences in food compared to what we are used to today. The lifestyle of those in the 17th century is very different from modern times but slower and calmer as well. There was inconsistency with the names of the characters in a few places. At times it was as if the reader is expected to recognize the name of a character that is only mentioned once. I can only guess that this is in error. The back of the book also says that it takes place in 2015 but in the actual story it is (to start out with) 2019. Without going into a lot of details as to why the wedding is also in the wrong year.
There is nothing in this book the I noticed that would make it inappropriate in any way. The topic and writing style might make it quite a bit boring for even middle school-aged readers. Those who like historical fiction and romance will probably enjoy this book. I rate this book 2 out of 4. Besides the inconsistencies and other issues, I mentioned earlier the book also had multiple typos and grammar errors. While I myself am not good in that area of writing the errors in this book were glaringly obvious even to me. The book needs to be closely edited and this seriously lowered the score.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews/
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
Andrea lives with her little dog, Muff, out in the country. She tries to live a structured life but since she works from home she finds herself giving in to cravings more often. Luckily Muff is extremely high energy for a little dog and requires Andrea to take her for long walks. One day Andrea makes plans with the neighbor guy for a date after Muff’s walk. The neighbor waits for her but she doesn't show up, for years.
During their walk Andrea and Muff finds themselves pulled into a dense yellow mist and when it dissipates things have changed. The area they are in looks familiar yet it is not the home they are used to, but instead, it looks more like pictures from a history book. Andrea draws a lot of attention to herself from the way she talks and dresses and soon finds herself with Father Jones. Through the Father, Andrea learns of Robert who also seems to have come from the future. Andrea manages to secure work along with room and board for herself and Robert at the home of William Farthing, a Lord. Sadly Andrea knows of the fate that is going to befall William and wars with herself about intervening. She also must come up with a decision if she wishes to return to her old life in the 21st century or try to keep her new one int the 17th.
I enjoyed how both positive and negative aspects of the 17th century are addressed. The dirty and poor living conditions are clearly depicted, as are the differences in food compared to what we are used to today. The lifestyle of those in the 17th century is very different from modern times but slower and calmer as well. There was inconsistency with the names of the characters in a few places. At times it was as if the reader is expected to recognize the name of a character that is only mentioned once. I can only guess that this is in error. The back of the book also says that it takes place in 2015 but in the actual story it is (to start out with) 2019. Without going into a lot of details as to why the wedding is also in the wrong year.
There is nothing in this book the I noticed that would make it inappropriate in any way. The topic and writing style might make it quite a bit boring for even middle school-aged readers. Those who like historical fiction and romance will probably enjoy this book. I rate this book 2 out of 4. Besides the inconsistencies and other issues, I mentioned earlier the book also had multiple typos and grammar errors. While I myself am not good in that area of writing the errors in this book were glaringly obvious even to me. The book needs to be closely edited and this seriously lowered the score.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews/
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Music Man in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
The Music Man by Moonyani Write is Written in a very different style, with no long paragraphs. Each sentence seems to be tarted on a different line, at least the dialogue is written this way. I recommend reading this book at a slower pace, there is no need to rush through it. In fact if you rush while reading this book there is a good chance that the reader wll miss things. Over all this book is a good way to kill some time.
A young boy by the name of Jimmy runs away from home on a cold day. He finds himself knocking on the door of the Music Man asking to come out of the cold. Jimmy and the Music Man find that they both have a love for music, especially melodies. With the help of a few neighbors, they bring the Music Man's piano downstairs from the attic. Then while playing a song together that the Music Man wrote on his piano they are magically transported to another world.
In this new world, the Music Man is a famous conductor who is scheduled to perform a concert in a few days. There is another conductor called Hornsbury who is using his music to possess people in an attempt to take over the world, one town at a time. Now Jimmy and his new friends must set out to stop Hornsbury. They travel to the town that Hornsbury came from in search of answers while the Music Man stays in Harmony town with his new friend Olivia. In the course of trying do defeat Hornsbuy it becomes clear that not everyone living in Harmony is exactly who they claim they are.
What I liked best was the lessons this story offers. All the characters go through some kind transformation and many experience personal growth. The happy ending, although expect was still a nice touch even with all the twists along the way. What I didn't like was the style itself, in fact, it was a major negative for me. I lost track of who was talking to who frequently because of the lack of paragraphs. The lack of paragraphs also caused me to get confused when the story shifted from Jimmny to Hornsbury. It was also extremely anti-climatic during the big battle at the end and did not build tension very well.
The target readers for this book are young teens. To be honest I would not recommend this book to teens with a high reading level. The content and subject matter should not be a problem if younger
readers would like to give this book a try as well. On face value the book may seem a bit on the longer side but readers should not let this intimidate them because it really is not that long of a book. I rate this book 2 out of 4. This is because while the story itself was decent the writing felt inconsistent. The style it was written in made it choppy to read. There were also times when it would be nicely detailed and then vague all in the same chapter.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
A young boy by the name of Jimmy runs away from home on a cold day. He finds himself knocking on the door of the Music Man asking to come out of the cold. Jimmy and the Music Man find that they both have a love for music, especially melodies. With the help of a few neighbors, they bring the Music Man's piano downstairs from the attic. Then while playing a song together that the Music Man wrote on his piano they are magically transported to another world.
In this new world, the Music Man is a famous conductor who is scheduled to perform a concert in a few days. There is another conductor called Hornsbury who is using his music to possess people in an attempt to take over the world, one town at a time. Now Jimmy and his new friends must set out to stop Hornsbury. They travel to the town that Hornsbury came from in search of answers while the Music Man stays in Harmony town with his new friend Olivia. In the course of trying do defeat Hornsbuy it becomes clear that not everyone living in Harmony is exactly who they claim they are.
What I liked best was the lessons this story offers. All the characters go through some kind transformation and many experience personal growth. The happy ending, although expect was still a nice touch even with all the twists along the way. What I didn't like was the style itself, in fact, it was a major negative for me. I lost track of who was talking to who frequently because of the lack of paragraphs. The lack of paragraphs also caused me to get confused when the story shifted from Jimmny to Hornsbury. It was also extremely anti-climatic during the big battle at the end and did not build tension very well.
The target readers for this book are young teens. To be honest I would not recommend this book to teens with a high reading level. The content and subject matter should not be a problem if younger
readers would like to give this book a try as well. On face value the book may seem a bit on the longer side but readers should not let this intimidate them because it really is not that long of a book. I rate this book 2 out of 4. This is because while the story itself was decent the writing felt inconsistent. The style it was written in made it choppy to read. There were also times when it would be nicely detailed and then vague all in the same chapter.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Greta (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I sat down to write up my notes for the weekend's films and I had already forgotten this one. I quite enjoyed it and yet it hasn't really stuck with me at all.
Frances, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, finds a handbag on the subway, unable to hand it in to lost property she takes it home with the intention of returning it the next day. Greta is a lonely widow whose daughter is abroad and she has nothing but her piano and photos for company. When the pair meet they connect immediately and their friendship grows. To say Greta is clingy would be an understatement and when Frances discovers a cupboard full of identical "missing" handbags she knows she needs to get some distance.
Right, so, the idea here relies on someone returning her handbag, admittedly a handbag is less suspicious than a rucksack or a suitcase, but I'm still not convinced. It relies on no one seeing her leave it when she gets up to leave, and no one spotting it when they get on at the stop, and then not a single member of staff being in the subway station to take the bag. Erica says it best, "you call the bomb squad"... yes you do, Erica.
I very much enjoyed the idea of this film, as thrillers go it's a good set up. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by trailers though, and in this instance I think they gave you too many moments that would have given a greater impact as a surprise. It also exposed an inconsistency.
The trailer shows Frances stuck in a lift as it's being crushed. In the context of the full film it made sense, sort of, but it left the question in the trailer of whether it was slightly sci-fi. While I knew what the whole scene was trying to achieve I felt that it was too confusing given the tone everywhere else.
Isabelle Huppert gives her character of Greta a delightfully creepy vibe, always pleasant and threatening at the same time and Chloë Grace Moretz played the naive Frances convincingly, but... I didn't think either particularly hit the spot. Greta was crazy but not devious enough and Frances was bordering on cliche when it came to her naivety.
There are lots of things that caused me issues, the passage of time being a major one. There's no clear idea of how long anything takes, how long their friendship went for, how long she was kidnapped, and it's surprisingly frustrating. I also am at a loss as to why her father resorts to a private investigator over the police, in my head it's because the police are saying she's a grown up and the messages suggest she's fine, but I don't think that's ever explicitly said.
I was getting very mixed tones from the film, first it was a drama, then a thriller, and then it seemed to want to be a horror. There's one point where it gets a little gruesome and it stuck out like a sore thumb. The very end as well, without trying to give spoilers, shows something I would fully expect to see in a horror movie, and in that setting it's a great way to finish it but in Greta seemed like a step in the wrong direction.
I've mentioned before that I don't over think the film while I'm watching it, I try not to look for the twists in advance, but I actually wrote the ending in my notes. While it was satisfying I was right, it was irritating that it was so obvious.
Like I mentioned above, the concept was great and it left a lot of opportunities for a brilliant thriller, but I feel like it just kept missing the point. A lot of the intrigue was stolen by the trailer and the identity crisis with the genre just held it back from what it could have achieved.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, certainly catch it when it goes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to keep a home clutter free like Erica and Frances.
Frances, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, finds a handbag on the subway, unable to hand it in to lost property she takes it home with the intention of returning it the next day. Greta is a lonely widow whose daughter is abroad and she has nothing but her piano and photos for company. When the pair meet they connect immediately and their friendship grows. To say Greta is clingy would be an understatement and when Frances discovers a cupboard full of identical "missing" handbags she knows she needs to get some distance.
Right, so, the idea here relies on someone returning her handbag, admittedly a handbag is less suspicious than a rucksack or a suitcase, but I'm still not convinced. It relies on no one seeing her leave it when she gets up to leave, and no one spotting it when they get on at the stop, and then not a single member of staff being in the subway station to take the bag. Erica says it best, "you call the bomb squad"... yes you do, Erica.
I very much enjoyed the idea of this film, as thrillers go it's a good set up. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by trailers though, and in this instance I think they gave you too many moments that would have given a greater impact as a surprise. It also exposed an inconsistency.
The trailer shows Frances stuck in a lift as it's being crushed. In the context of the full film it made sense, sort of, but it left the question in the trailer of whether it was slightly sci-fi. While I knew what the whole scene was trying to achieve I felt that it was too confusing given the tone everywhere else.
Isabelle Huppert gives her character of Greta a delightfully creepy vibe, always pleasant and threatening at the same time and Chloë Grace Moretz played the naive Frances convincingly, but... I didn't think either particularly hit the spot. Greta was crazy but not devious enough and Frances was bordering on cliche when it came to her naivety.
There are lots of things that caused me issues, the passage of time being a major one. There's no clear idea of how long anything takes, how long their friendship went for, how long she was kidnapped, and it's surprisingly frustrating. I also am at a loss as to why her father resorts to a private investigator over the police, in my head it's because the police are saying she's a grown up and the messages suggest she's fine, but I don't think that's ever explicitly said.
I was getting very mixed tones from the film, first it was a drama, then a thriller, and then it seemed to want to be a horror. There's one point where it gets a little gruesome and it stuck out like a sore thumb. The very end as well, without trying to give spoilers, shows something I would fully expect to see in a horror movie, and in that setting it's a great way to finish it but in Greta seemed like a step in the wrong direction.
I've mentioned before that I don't over think the film while I'm watching it, I try not to look for the twists in advance, but I actually wrote the ending in my notes. While it was satisfying I was right, it was irritating that it was so obvious.
Like I mentioned above, the concept was great and it left a lot of opportunities for a brilliant thriller, but I feel like it just kept missing the point. A lot of the intrigue was stolen by the trailer and the identity crisis with the genre just held it back from what it could have achieved.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, certainly catch it when it goes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to keep a home clutter free like Erica and Frances.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
“Halloween” has long been considered by many to have been the film that started the “Slasher” subculture. The independent movie became a box office smash and made Michael Myers a cultural icon ever since its debut in 1978.
Although multiple sequels and a reboot followed over the years; they did not match the intensity of the original as they opted for higher body counts and gore versus suspense and story and in many ways became almost a parody of themselves as Michael would cut down cast after cast of teens and anyone else in his way.
The new film takes the approach that none of the films after the first ever happened so instead of Michael stalking Lorrie in a hospital in “Halloween 2”; he was captured and incarcerated in an mental institute for the last forty years where he has remained silent despite his Doctor (Haluk Bilginer) best efforts to get him to speak as he attempts to understand what motivates a person described as pure evil.
The forty years since “The Night He Came Home” has not been kind to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis); as since her encounter with Michael: she has become a hard drinking isolationist who suffers from severe Post Traumatic Syndrome. Laurie has become obsessed with guns, weapons, and protection to the point that it has cost her two marriages and even had her only child Karen (Judy Greer) taken from her by the state which has resulted in her having a fractured relationship with her and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak).
When a pair of journalists attempt to interview Laurie to try to get her to agree to a face to face with Michael; it sets a chain of events into motion which leads to Michael escaping during a prison transfer.
Michael wastes no time in returning home leaving a trail of death in his path and sets him on a collision course with Laurie who has spent the last forty years preparing for his return.
The film is a true sequel to the original as aside from the second film; it is the closest in tone and theme to the original. While it does have more gore and a higher body count in keeping with the modern expectations of a film of this type, writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride clearly understand the source material and have crafted an extension of the original versus a continuation refurbished. The fact that John Carpenter has returned as an Executive Producer also helps.
The film wisely sets the focus on the characters which makes the horror aspects more compelling as this is not a bunch of anonymous victims we are watching.
A sequel is reportedly in development and I hope this creative team returns as this was a truly worthy sequel to the classic original that was long overdue.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/17/halloween/
Although multiple sequels and a reboot followed over the years; they did not match the intensity of the original as they opted for higher body counts and gore versus suspense and story and in many ways became almost a parody of themselves as Michael would cut down cast after cast of teens and anyone else in his way.
The new film takes the approach that none of the films after the first ever happened so instead of Michael stalking Lorrie in a hospital in “Halloween 2”; he was captured and incarcerated in an mental institute for the last forty years where he has remained silent despite his Doctor (Haluk Bilginer) best efforts to get him to speak as he attempts to understand what motivates a person described as pure evil.
The forty years since “The Night He Came Home” has not been kind to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis); as since her encounter with Michael: she has become a hard drinking isolationist who suffers from severe Post Traumatic Syndrome. Laurie has become obsessed with guns, weapons, and protection to the point that it has cost her two marriages and even had her only child Karen (Judy Greer) taken from her by the state which has resulted in her having a fractured relationship with her and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak).
When a pair of journalists attempt to interview Laurie to try to get her to agree to a face to face with Michael; it sets a chain of events into motion which leads to Michael escaping during a prison transfer.
Michael wastes no time in returning home leaving a trail of death in his path and sets him on a collision course with Laurie who has spent the last forty years preparing for his return.
The film is a true sequel to the original as aside from the second film; it is the closest in tone and theme to the original. While it does have more gore and a higher body count in keeping with the modern expectations of a film of this type, writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride clearly understand the source material and have crafted an extension of the original versus a continuation refurbished. The fact that John Carpenter has returned as an Executive Producer also helps.
The film wisely sets the focus on the characters which makes the horror aspects more compelling as this is not a bunch of anonymous victims we are watching.
A sequel is reportedly in development and I hope this creative team returns as this was a truly worthy sequel to the classic original that was long overdue.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/17/halloween/