Search
Search results
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Kill Someone in Books
Jul 30, 2017
Realistic not Hollywood style thriller
Luke Smitherd has done another great job in bringing to life characters facing inexplicable terror. Chris, the protagonist, is both humorous and human - making misguided choices based on the little experiences that he had. The man in white is a brilliant villain, odious through his fake good humour and his macabre outlook of life. I really wish we could've found out how and why the man in white chose his victims and not just just how he picked his pawns. Would recommend!
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Hard Way (2019) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
The Way Or Not The Hard Way - 6/10
The Hard Way is a 2019 action movie directed by Keoni Waxman and written by Keoni Waxman and Thomas J. Churchill; also produced by Binh Dang and Phillip B. Goldfine. Starring Michael Jai White, Luke Goss and Randy Couture.
In Romania, Cody (Grant Campbell) is killed pursuing a criminal while involved in an undercover operation. After learning of his brother's death, Payne (Michael Jai White), travels to Romania to investigate and exact revenge. He speaks with his brother's partner Mason (Luke Goss) and their employer, local chief investigator Briggs (Randy Couture) and finds possible leads while also attending the funeral.
This movie wasn't too bad but as a big fan of Michael Jai White, I was surprised I didn't like it more. Of course the fight scenes were awesome but I liked how the firefight scenes were really well done as well. That being said t wasn't one of his best movies. The acting of the two Russian mobsters in the opening scene was horrible and cliche. The casting was good as Luke Goss and Michael Jai White seem to have good chemistry on screen but the lack of a clear and captivating plot definitely brought the film down. The writing wasn't the greatest either as some dialogue said by Michael didn't come off natural. Not sure how I thought about Randy Couture being cast, his acting didn't seem to fit as well in the movie but he did kind of grow on me. Overall the film feels like it left something unfulfilled, it lacks some of the emotions that it should've had and doesn't live up to its potential. It's a good action flick if that's all you care about seeing on screen. I give it a 6/10.
In Romania, Cody (Grant Campbell) is killed pursuing a criminal while involved in an undercover operation. After learning of his brother's death, Payne (Michael Jai White), travels to Romania to investigate and exact revenge. He speaks with his brother's partner Mason (Luke Goss) and their employer, local chief investigator Briggs (Randy Couture) and finds possible leads while also attending the funeral.
This movie wasn't too bad but as a big fan of Michael Jai White, I was surprised I didn't like it more. Of course the fight scenes were awesome but I liked how the firefight scenes were really well done as well. That being said t wasn't one of his best movies. The acting of the two Russian mobsters in the opening scene was horrible and cliche. The casting was good as Luke Goss and Michael Jai White seem to have good chemistry on screen but the lack of a clear and captivating plot definitely brought the film down. The writing wasn't the greatest either as some dialogue said by Michael didn't come off natural. Not sure how I thought about Randy Couture being cast, his acting didn't seem to fit as well in the movie but he did kind of grow on me. Overall the film feels like it left something unfulfilled, it lacks some of the emotions that it should've had and doesn't live up to its potential. It's a good action flick if that's all you care about seeing on screen. I give it a 6/10.
Tim McGuire (301 KP) rated Sushi Girl (2013) in Movies
Mar 14, 2020
Old Movie Revisited: Sushi Girl. Did you ever want to see Luke Skywalker torture Atreyu from Neverending Story? Me either, but if you did, you can see it here. Not only do we have Luke and Atreyu, we get Candyman, Frank from Donnie Darko, and some extremely brief cameos from Kyle Reese, Machete, Frank Lapidus from Lost, the original Streetfighter himself, and White Power Bill. Of course you have to spend a preternatural amount of time in front of the TV to know some of these people, but hey, youre loss... So this is a Quentin Tarantinoesque type gangster flick that revolves around a botched diamond heist and the torture of Atreyu, after he gets out of a six year stint in the joint. And of course a Sushi Girl who is covered with? Anyone? Anyone? Thats right sushi... Yes, Stephanie Golden, she is naked and has a pretty decent rack :) Mark Hamill, er, Luke, does a pretty awesome job doing a 30's type gangster drawl, and seems to enjoy torturing Atreyu (where the hell has that guy been?) So that being said, and you like Tarantinoesques films, and don't mind a little bloody torture fun, check it out, its a pretty decent ride, like your momma! Filmbufftim on FB
BobbiesDustyPages (1259 KP) rated Marvel's The Defenders - Season 1 in TV
Aug 30, 2017
Action packed (1 more)
Good plot
Iron fist (4 more)
Iron fist
Iron fist
Kind of dull at times
Iron fist
Dysfunctional bunch of assholes that you want to have a drink with
The Defenders was a lot of fun to watch with some really awesome action sequences that I've come to associate with Marvel/Netflix while story is nothing new it was still fun to watch and to see The Defenders come together was really awesome(except for Iron fist). For me Jessica Jones was really the stand out from the group and really saved this season for me.
You really feel the shorts season with this one and since they waited so long for them to come together the last few episodes felt a but rushed so I do wish they would have extended the season to the normal 13 episodes I feel like it really would have helped the pacing of the season.
If you couldn't tell I really truly hated Iron Fist with a passion he was such an obnoxious epitome of rich white male privilege and he really did drag this season down for me since almost every time he was on screen I found my focus drifting off. I will admit I did enjoy his interactions with Luke Cage.
You really feel the shorts season with this one and since they waited so long for them to come together the last few episodes felt a but rushed so I do wish they would have extended the season to the normal 13 episodes I feel like it really would have helped the pacing of the season.
If you couldn't tell I really truly hated Iron Fist with a passion he was such an obnoxious epitome of rich white male privilege and he really did drag this season down for me since almost every time he was on screen I found my focus drifting off. I will admit I did enjoy his interactions with Luke Cage.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Storm Watcher in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Is it possible for a book to be both too fast and too slow? This is what the story feels like in Maria V. Snyder’s contemporary children’s book <i>Storm Watcher</i>. It is the summer holidays and twelve year old Luke is working at the <i>Storm Watcher Kennel</i>, helping to take care of and train the many dogs living there. For his thirteenth birthday his father has promised him a bloodhound puppy, but what Luke really wants is a fluffy white Papillon – a dog that his father and brothers believe is useless and girly.
An important aspect of the story is Luke’s debilitating fear of storms. Although he has always been frightened of thunder and lightening, his mother’s recent death during a storm has greatly heightened his fears. Despite this phobia, Luke has enough knowledge and interest to act as an amateur meteorologist.
It takes a long time to get into the storyline. To begin with there is so much going on – dog breeding and training, starting to work with Willajean and her daughter Megan, feelings of guilt about mother’s death, fear of storms – making it difficult to determine which parts are essential to the plot, and more importantly, figure out the plot in the first place. Three months rapidly fly by, which in a short novel does not leave much room for an exciting climax, yet nothing major occurs.
Perhaps only the adult reader will detect the dullness <i>Storm Watcher</i> exudes, whereas when seen through a child’s eyes the story may be more exciting. Snyder has included a few interesting concepts such as over coming fear, dealing with grief and standing up for yourself. All these ideas are important for young people to understand and utilize in their own lives. The topic of meteorology, on the other hand, is not something children<i> need</i> to know, however it may interest them and provide the opportunity to learn something new. The author used to be a meteorologist before she turned to the world of literature, therefore has been able to provide a vast amount of knowledge about storms and weather, including a lengthy list of facts at the back of the book.
Maria V. Snyder’s young adult novels are well known throughout online communities, therefore <i>Storm Watcher</i>, although written for a younger target audience, had a standard to live up to. Unfortunately the result was disappointing, slow and a struggle to read. The book contains interesting ideas; however these could be expanded on to create a more engaging, full-length novel.
Is it possible for a book to be both too fast and too slow? This is what the story feels like in Maria V. Snyder’s contemporary children’s book <i>Storm Watcher</i>. It is the summer holidays and twelve year old Luke is working at the <i>Storm Watcher Kennel</i>, helping to take care of and train the many dogs living there. For his thirteenth birthday his father has promised him a bloodhound puppy, but what Luke really wants is a fluffy white Papillon – a dog that his father and brothers believe is useless and girly.
An important aspect of the story is Luke’s debilitating fear of storms. Although he has always been frightened of thunder and lightening, his mother’s recent death during a storm has greatly heightened his fears. Despite this phobia, Luke has enough knowledge and interest to act as an amateur meteorologist.
It takes a long time to get into the storyline. To begin with there is so much going on – dog breeding and training, starting to work with Willajean and her daughter Megan, feelings of guilt about mother’s death, fear of storms – making it difficult to determine which parts are essential to the plot, and more importantly, figure out the plot in the first place. Three months rapidly fly by, which in a short novel does not leave much room for an exciting climax, yet nothing major occurs.
Perhaps only the adult reader will detect the dullness <i>Storm Watcher</i> exudes, whereas when seen through a child’s eyes the story may be more exciting. Snyder has included a few interesting concepts such as over coming fear, dealing with grief and standing up for yourself. All these ideas are important for young people to understand and utilize in their own lives. The topic of meteorology, on the other hand, is not something children<i> need</i> to know, however it may interest them and provide the opportunity to learn something new. The author used to be a meteorologist before she turned to the world of literature, therefore has been able to provide a vast amount of knowledge about storms and weather, including a lengthy list of facts at the back of the book.
Maria V. Snyder’s young adult novels are well known throughout online communities, therefore <i>Storm Watcher</i>, although written for a younger target audience, had a standard to live up to. Unfortunately the result was disappointing, slow and a struggle to read. The book contains interesting ideas; however these could be expanded on to create a more engaging, full-length novel.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Institute in Books
Oct 24, 2019
Likable characters (1 more)
Paranormal
Sexualizing children (1 more)
Not a regular King story
At around 95 novels, Stephen King, who is one of the most well-known authors of our time, debuts a possible new novel series about psychic children. 'The Institute' mostly takes place in a hidden facility located in a wooded area of Maine,where readers follow a kidnapped child prodigy named Luke Ellis, and the government experiments that are inflicted on him to heighten his psychic powers.
So why is the government kidnapping children to conduct psychic research on them? At first, it may seem just that: psychic research, because psychic powers seem to be more powerful in young children than adults, but nothing is what it seems. As the boss of this Institute says to the children: " ' There's a war going on, and you have been called upon to serve your country.' " A few sentences later, and she explains it a little more in depth for Ellis: " ' This is not an arms race but a mind race, and if we lose, the consequences would be more than dire; they would be unimaginable. You may only be twelve, but you are a soldier in an undeclared war. The same is true of Kalisha and the others. Do you like it? Of course not. Draftees never do, and draftees sometimes need to be taught that there are consequences for not following orders. I believe you've already had one lesson in that regard. If you're as bright as your records say you are, perhaps you won't need another. If you do, however, you'll get it. This is not your home. This is not your school. You will not simply be given an extra chore or sent to the principal's office or given detention; you will be punished. Clear? ' "
King writes in a third-person point-of-view, which makes it a little disturbing that when any female character he introduces (including girls as young as 11-years-old) are usually introduced by their breast size. It's not uncommon for male writers to introduce female characters this way, but when most of them are children, it can be very off putting for readers. One scene, King makes Ellis notice that Kalisha has 'her hands on her mostly nonexistent hips,' then writes about the character Helen in the same scene: " Another door opened and Helen Simms appeared, clad - - - sort of - - - in what Luke believed were called babydoll pajamas. She had hips, plus other interesting equipment. " Both of these characters are only twelve-years-old.
Aside from the children, King also introduces an important character named Tim Jamieson. This character starts the novel off before readers meet Ellis; we learn that he is a former cop who is traveling to New York while taking odd jobs on his way there, including a night knocker job in DuPray, South Carolina (which becomes very important later on in the story) .
Avery, my personal favorite character in the book, is a ten-year-old who acts like a five-year-old, " The screamer was a little boy in Star Wars pajamas, hammering on doors with small fists that went up and down like pistons. Ten? Avery Dixon looked six, seven at most. The crotch and one leg of his pajama pants were wet and sticking to him. " Dixon and Kalisha are both in the Institute for telepathy. " 'You know so,' Kalisha said, and began to stroke the little boy's [Dixon] hair again. Like had a sense - - - maybe bullshit, maybe not - - - that a lot was going on between them. Inside traffic. " And quickly, the group of children become protective of Dixon, " 'But you need to take care of this one for as long as you can. When I think of Tony or Zeke or that bitch Winona hitting Avery, it makes me want to cry. ' " Kalisha confides in Ellis.
Kalisha, one of the other children that has been kidnapped, is another very likable character that seems to keep all of the other kids' spirits up by either keeping them out of trouble with advice or stopping small fights between them. Another kid named Nicky, the troublemaker of the group, is the stereo-typical bad boy. He gets involved in fistfights with the orderlies that work at the Institute, taking quite a bit of abuse in return. But eventually, the rebelliousness catches up with him, leading him to be moved from Front Half to the dreaded Back Half.
Readers later learn that Back Half is worse than Front Half. Most questions we may have about why the Institute is abusing these children are all answered when readers get to see into Back Half from Kalisha's point-of-view. But what is left unanswered is exactly how many children have been through the Institute? From the amount of children seen just in this story, the numbers could be in the hundreds of thousands!
But, as expected, the children come up with a plan to escape - - - with giving as little detail as possible, an orderlie at the Institute is helped by one of the children with a personal problem, and in return, this orderlie decides to help one of them escape and reveal everything that is the Institute. The instance the escape starts being discussed is when the book really picks up.
King's writing of the abuse our characters sustain is very real (" When Stevie Whipple asked where he'd been and what was wrong, Luke just shook his head. He didn't want to talk about the tank. Not now, not ever. He supposed it was like being in a war. You got drafted, you went, but you didn't want to talk about what you'd seen, or what had happened to you there." ) The scene in which Ellis refuses to speak of is where the orderlie Zeke is trying to make Ellis confess that he is not only telekinesis, but also telepathic: "Zeke hauled him up by the hair. His white tunic was soaked. He looked fixedly at Luke. 'I'm going to put you down again, Luke. Again and again and again. I'll put you down until you drown and then we'll resuscitate you and drown you again and resuscitate you again. Last chance: what number am I thinking of?' "
King brings up a fictional belief that strikes fear in parents everywhere: children being kidnapped for government experiments. Readers witness Ellis' parents being killed, Kalisha being a surrogate mother to kids she barely knows, Nicky being beaten by adults when he refuses to get 'shots for dots,' night terrors, suicide, zap sticks and murder.
This book doesn't read like a regular King book; even with the paranormal aspects occurring in it, it doesn't add up to much. The horror aspect is more in the form of child abuse then paranormal moments. I would only recommend this book to fans of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' and Patterson's 'Maximum Ride.' I don't think I would read this again.
So why is the government kidnapping children to conduct psychic research on them? At first, it may seem just that: psychic research, because psychic powers seem to be more powerful in young children than adults, but nothing is what it seems. As the boss of this Institute says to the children: " ' There's a war going on, and you have been called upon to serve your country.' " A few sentences later, and she explains it a little more in depth for Ellis: " ' This is not an arms race but a mind race, and if we lose, the consequences would be more than dire; they would be unimaginable. You may only be twelve, but you are a soldier in an undeclared war. The same is true of Kalisha and the others. Do you like it? Of course not. Draftees never do, and draftees sometimes need to be taught that there are consequences for not following orders. I believe you've already had one lesson in that regard. If you're as bright as your records say you are, perhaps you won't need another. If you do, however, you'll get it. This is not your home. This is not your school. You will not simply be given an extra chore or sent to the principal's office or given detention; you will be punished. Clear? ' "
King writes in a third-person point-of-view, which makes it a little disturbing that when any female character he introduces (including girls as young as 11-years-old) are usually introduced by their breast size. It's not uncommon for male writers to introduce female characters this way, but when most of them are children, it can be very off putting for readers. One scene, King makes Ellis notice that Kalisha has 'her hands on her mostly nonexistent hips,' then writes about the character Helen in the same scene: " Another door opened and Helen Simms appeared, clad - - - sort of - - - in what Luke believed were called babydoll pajamas. She had hips, plus other interesting equipment. " Both of these characters are only twelve-years-old.
Aside from the children, King also introduces an important character named Tim Jamieson. This character starts the novel off before readers meet Ellis; we learn that he is a former cop who is traveling to New York while taking odd jobs on his way there, including a night knocker job in DuPray, South Carolina (which becomes very important later on in the story) .
Avery, my personal favorite character in the book, is a ten-year-old who acts like a five-year-old, " The screamer was a little boy in Star Wars pajamas, hammering on doors with small fists that went up and down like pistons. Ten? Avery Dixon looked six, seven at most. The crotch and one leg of his pajama pants were wet and sticking to him. " Dixon and Kalisha are both in the Institute for telepathy. " 'You know so,' Kalisha said, and began to stroke the little boy's [Dixon] hair again. Like had a sense - - - maybe bullshit, maybe not - - - that a lot was going on between them. Inside traffic. " And quickly, the group of children become protective of Dixon, " 'But you need to take care of this one for as long as you can. When I think of Tony or Zeke or that bitch Winona hitting Avery, it makes me want to cry. ' " Kalisha confides in Ellis.
Kalisha, one of the other children that has been kidnapped, is another very likable character that seems to keep all of the other kids' spirits up by either keeping them out of trouble with advice or stopping small fights between them. Another kid named Nicky, the troublemaker of the group, is the stereo-typical bad boy. He gets involved in fistfights with the orderlies that work at the Institute, taking quite a bit of abuse in return. But eventually, the rebelliousness catches up with him, leading him to be moved from Front Half to the dreaded Back Half.
Readers later learn that Back Half is worse than Front Half. Most questions we may have about why the Institute is abusing these children are all answered when readers get to see into Back Half from Kalisha's point-of-view. But what is left unanswered is exactly how many children have been through the Institute? From the amount of children seen just in this story, the numbers could be in the hundreds of thousands!
But, as expected, the children come up with a plan to escape - - - with giving as little detail as possible, an orderlie at the Institute is helped by one of the children with a personal problem, and in return, this orderlie decides to help one of them escape and reveal everything that is the Institute. The instance the escape starts being discussed is when the book really picks up.
King's writing of the abuse our characters sustain is very real (" When Stevie Whipple asked where he'd been and what was wrong, Luke just shook his head. He didn't want to talk about the tank. Not now, not ever. He supposed it was like being in a war. You got drafted, you went, but you didn't want to talk about what you'd seen, or what had happened to you there." ) The scene in which Ellis refuses to speak of is where the orderlie Zeke is trying to make Ellis confess that he is not only telekinesis, but also telepathic: "Zeke hauled him up by the hair. His white tunic was soaked. He looked fixedly at Luke. 'I'm going to put you down again, Luke. Again and again and again. I'll put you down until you drown and then we'll resuscitate you and drown you again and resuscitate you again. Last chance: what number am I thinking of?' "
King brings up a fictional belief that strikes fear in parents everywhere: children being kidnapped for government experiments. Readers witness Ellis' parents being killed, Kalisha being a surrogate mother to kids she barely knows, Nicky being beaten by adults when he refuses to get 'shots for dots,' night terrors, suicide, zap sticks and murder.
This book doesn't read like a regular King book; even with the paranormal aspects occurring in it, it doesn't add up to much. The horror aspect is more in the form of child abuse then paranormal moments. I would only recommend this book to fans of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' and Patterson's 'Maximum Ride.' I don't think I would read this again.
JT (287 KP) rated The Reef (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
“You’re gonna need a bigger boat!” those few words struck terror into the hearts of cinema goers who got a first glimpse of Steven Spielberg’s monster rising out of the water in Jaws. Others have attempted to recreate that fear.
Open Water saw two divers float around for ages before finally becoming lunch for a pack of hunting tiger sharks. Deep Blue Sea used CGI technology to create massive predators with a smart enough brain to devour the hapless crew of a scientific research station. And Shark Night 3D gave us blood curdling horror with half naked women thrown in for good measure. The Reef, encompasses most of the above minus the CGI. Here it’s replaced with clever and careful editing of one of the most beautiful but sinister creatures of the ocean….the Great White Shark.
A small group of friends, some with a past, get together on a yacht and hit the clear blue waters to deliver it to a waiting recipient. When it capsizes they are faced with the choice, swim for it to the nearest land miles away or wait it out on a potentially sinking vessel. Four members venture out leaving one behind, who after confessing he fishes the waters has no desire to get his feet wet, but excelling in scaring the shit out of his friends by telling them they all look like seals ready for the slaughter.
For any low budget indie film such as this creating tension when you have a location that looks exactly the same for miles in each direction is always going to be hard. But to his credit Andrew Traucki does extremely well in building up the entrance of our finned friend. Capturing the underwater viewpoint from Luke (the only one with a face mask) he dives down now and again to check the murky undertow for signs of life at the request of some very distressed friends. You’re always half expecting to see something but it never comes, until you finally catch a glimpse of the tail, and then your heart will race.
Of course this tension has to be sustained for the next forty-five minutes which is pretty hard. The acting is OK, made all the more effective by the fact that the cast is a bunch of relative unknowns. It’s hardly a surprise ending however, but given what Traucki has to work with he’s a produced good effort. There’s enough here to keep anyone happy, more so if you’re afraid of being left to die in miles of open water….oh, and you hate sharks!
Open Water saw two divers float around for ages before finally becoming lunch for a pack of hunting tiger sharks. Deep Blue Sea used CGI technology to create massive predators with a smart enough brain to devour the hapless crew of a scientific research station. And Shark Night 3D gave us blood curdling horror with half naked women thrown in for good measure. The Reef, encompasses most of the above minus the CGI. Here it’s replaced with clever and careful editing of one of the most beautiful but sinister creatures of the ocean….the Great White Shark.
A small group of friends, some with a past, get together on a yacht and hit the clear blue waters to deliver it to a waiting recipient. When it capsizes they are faced with the choice, swim for it to the nearest land miles away or wait it out on a potentially sinking vessel. Four members venture out leaving one behind, who after confessing he fishes the waters has no desire to get his feet wet, but excelling in scaring the shit out of his friends by telling them they all look like seals ready for the slaughter.
For any low budget indie film such as this creating tension when you have a location that looks exactly the same for miles in each direction is always going to be hard. But to his credit Andrew Traucki does extremely well in building up the entrance of our finned friend. Capturing the underwater viewpoint from Luke (the only one with a face mask) he dives down now and again to check the murky undertow for signs of life at the request of some very distressed friends. You’re always half expecting to see something but it never comes, until you finally catch a glimpse of the tail, and then your heart will race.
Of course this tension has to be sustained for the next forty-five minutes which is pretty hard. The acting is OK, made all the more effective by the fact that the cast is a bunch of relative unknowns. It’s hardly a surprise ending however, but given what Traucki has to work with he’s a produced good effort. There’s enough here to keep anyone happy, more so if you’re afraid of being left to die in miles of open water….oh, and you hate sharks!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Delivers EXACTLY what is expected - and that's a good thing
If you are heading into the multi-plex to check out FAST AND FURIOUS PRESENTS: HOBBS & SHAW, the 9th(!) entry in the Fast and Furious Universe, you pretty much know (and expect) what you are about to watch.
And HOBBS & SHAW does not disappoint - delivering over-the-top action with unsinkable heroes and unblinking villains battling each other with explosions galore and disposable henchmen being...well...disposed of left and right.
Reprising their roles as "Lawman" Luke Hobbs and "Outcast" Deckard Shaw (F&F terms for them) are the charismatic Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and the smoldering Jason Statham. Their two characters can't stand each other, so - naturally - they are forced to work in concert with each other to stop Super-Villain Brixton (Edris Elba). Can these 2 "frenemies" learn to put aside their differences and work together to stop a Villain that they cannot stop by themselves?
What do you think?
But...it's the journey...not the destination that's the fun of this film and this film is fun, fun, fun, indeed. Both Johnson and Statham know EXACTLY what type of film they are in - and know what their core audience is coming to this film to see - and they deliver in spades. They are perfect for these characters and are perfectly paired together. While the script, at times, seemed forced, these 2 action SuperStars make even the clunkiest of dialogue work and they are "game" for whatever is thrown at them.
Elba joins in strongly as the villain and newcomer (at least to this franchise) Vanessa Kirby (the White Widow in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT) just as strongly counterbalances all 3 of them as the "McGuffin" of this film - the thing that the good guys and the bad guys are fighting each other for. Dame Helen Mirren is back as the criminal mother of Statham's character and she understands what type of film she's in as well. So does Eddie Marsan, who looks like he is having an absolute ball as a scientist brought into the fray.
There are also 2 "secret cameos" in this film that are fun - and I perked up in my seat when both of these cameos injected energy into this testosterone-infused flick.
Former Stuntman and Director David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2, ATOMIC BLONDE) throws a ton of action, car chases, guns, fights and explosions at the audience - all to good effect. His answer to bad acting and huge, implausible plot holes? Blow things up! And that works very, very well for this film. Leitch delivers exactly what is expected here - and that's just fine for me.
I was extremely entertained by this movie. I was in the mood for it - and it delivered exactly what I was looking for. Kind of like eating a good burger.
Letter Grade: A- (though, don't expect to break into "discussion groups" afterward)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And HOBBS & SHAW does not disappoint - delivering over-the-top action with unsinkable heroes and unblinking villains battling each other with explosions galore and disposable henchmen being...well...disposed of left and right.
Reprising their roles as "Lawman" Luke Hobbs and "Outcast" Deckard Shaw (F&F terms for them) are the charismatic Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and the smoldering Jason Statham. Their two characters can't stand each other, so - naturally - they are forced to work in concert with each other to stop Super-Villain Brixton (Edris Elba). Can these 2 "frenemies" learn to put aside their differences and work together to stop a Villain that they cannot stop by themselves?
What do you think?
But...it's the journey...not the destination that's the fun of this film and this film is fun, fun, fun, indeed. Both Johnson and Statham know EXACTLY what type of film they are in - and know what their core audience is coming to this film to see - and they deliver in spades. They are perfect for these characters and are perfectly paired together. While the script, at times, seemed forced, these 2 action SuperStars make even the clunkiest of dialogue work and they are "game" for whatever is thrown at them.
Elba joins in strongly as the villain and newcomer (at least to this franchise) Vanessa Kirby (the White Widow in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT) just as strongly counterbalances all 3 of them as the "McGuffin" of this film - the thing that the good guys and the bad guys are fighting each other for. Dame Helen Mirren is back as the criminal mother of Statham's character and she understands what type of film she's in as well. So does Eddie Marsan, who looks like he is having an absolute ball as a scientist brought into the fray.
There are also 2 "secret cameos" in this film that are fun - and I perked up in my seat when both of these cameos injected energy into this testosterone-infused flick.
Former Stuntman and Director David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2, ATOMIC BLONDE) throws a ton of action, car chases, guns, fights and explosions at the audience - all to good effect. His answer to bad acting and huge, implausible plot holes? Blow things up! And that works very, very well for this film. Leitch delivers exactly what is expected here - and that's just fine for me.
I was extremely entertained by this movie. I was in the mood for it - and it delivered exactly what I was looking for. Kind of like eating a good burger.
Letter Grade: A- (though, don't expect to break into "discussion groups" afterward)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea (Between, #1) in Books
Jun 6, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
This is a book I'd been wanting to read for awhile. The whole gothic horror thing really piqued my interest. While this wasn't my favorite horror story, it was still a good read. I've also seen some reviews saying that this book was a lot like the Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer but I didn't think it was.
I must admit that the title is what caught my attention first. I love it, and I find that it's a very fitting title for the book.
The cover is the next thing that caught my attention, and while I don't think it really fits in with the story, it's still an interesting cover.
I enjoyed the world building very much. However, a majority of characters in this book had really peculiar names like Violet White, River West, True White, Sunshine, etc. Maybe it was just a coincidence, but I still found it strange that they all had extraordinary names. I loved the back story of everything which helped to set up the world building very nicely. The one thing that kind of annoyed me was the insta-love between River and Violet.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, but I hung in there. By about the third chapter, the book reeled me in, and my attention was focused solely on finding out what was going to happen and if River was truly a bad boy or just misunderstood.
I felt that the plot had some originality to it. River moves in to Violet's guest house and suddenly a bunch of weird things start happening. I really want to elaborate more on the plot, but I also don't want to give anything away. Let's just say the plot deals with the paranormal and romance. There is a plot twist. There's also a sort of cliff hanger ending since there's a second book in the series.
As for the characters, I thought they were alright even if they did seem a bit older than their actual ages of 16 and 17. I liked how Violet wasn't ashamed to be different. She was odd, yes, but that's what I loved about her. She seemed, for the most part, to be comfortable in her own skin. I didn't really know what to make of River. He was very mysterious and he lied...a lot! This made me not trust him at all, yet Violet was perfectly happy to trust River. (Okay, so Violet had one annoying trait). I liked Luke, and I didn't feel that he was as mean to Violet as what Violet led us to believe. In fact, I thought he was quite nice and caring. He was a bit of a ladies man, but the kid is 17 years old after all. I liked how Neely was like the protector of everyone. He did have a bit of a temper, but he was willing to do whatever it took to protect his friends and family. The character I really had a problem with was Brodie. He's such a stereotypical Texan, and that's what really made me upset. He came across as an uneducated hillbilly. I really did feel offended by the author for her portrayal of Texans.
The dialogue sounds more fitting for an adult novel as the teenagers in the book speak like they are much older than their 16 and 17 years. As I stated in the above paragraph, I was offended by the character of Brodie. His speech was so stereotypical and offensive. I've never even heard anyone from Texas speak the way Brodie spoke, and I was born and raised here in Texas! I think the author should've done a bit more research about the dialogue and dialect of Texas instead of just stereotyping. Other than that, the dialogue flowed smoothly and freely. The book is fairly violent, and there are some mild sexual situations. There is some swearing as well.
Overall, Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea is an intriguing read with a great plot. The world building is interesting, and the characters are likable even if one was extremely offensive.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who are fans of gothic horror or just horror in general.
<b>I'd give Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea by April Genevieve Tucholke a 3.75 out of 5.</b>
(I purchased a hardcover copy of this book with my own money from Amazon. No review was required).
This is a book I'd been wanting to read for awhile. The whole gothic horror thing really piqued my interest. While this wasn't my favorite horror story, it was still a good read. I've also seen some reviews saying that this book was a lot like the Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer but I didn't think it was.
I must admit that the title is what caught my attention first. I love it, and I find that it's a very fitting title for the book.
The cover is the next thing that caught my attention, and while I don't think it really fits in with the story, it's still an interesting cover.
I enjoyed the world building very much. However, a majority of characters in this book had really peculiar names like Violet White, River West, True White, Sunshine, etc. Maybe it was just a coincidence, but I still found it strange that they all had extraordinary names. I loved the back story of everything which helped to set up the world building very nicely. The one thing that kind of annoyed me was the insta-love between River and Violet.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, but I hung in there. By about the third chapter, the book reeled me in, and my attention was focused solely on finding out what was going to happen and if River was truly a bad boy or just misunderstood.
I felt that the plot had some originality to it. River moves in to Violet's guest house and suddenly a bunch of weird things start happening. I really want to elaborate more on the plot, but I also don't want to give anything away. Let's just say the plot deals with the paranormal and romance. There is a plot twist. There's also a sort of cliff hanger ending since there's a second book in the series.
As for the characters, I thought they were alright even if they did seem a bit older than their actual ages of 16 and 17. I liked how Violet wasn't ashamed to be different. She was odd, yes, but that's what I loved about her. She seemed, for the most part, to be comfortable in her own skin. I didn't really know what to make of River. He was very mysterious and he lied...a lot! This made me not trust him at all, yet Violet was perfectly happy to trust River. (Okay, so Violet had one annoying trait). I liked Luke, and I didn't feel that he was as mean to Violet as what Violet led us to believe. In fact, I thought he was quite nice and caring. He was a bit of a ladies man, but the kid is 17 years old after all. I liked how Neely was like the protector of everyone. He did have a bit of a temper, but he was willing to do whatever it took to protect his friends and family. The character I really had a problem with was Brodie. He's such a stereotypical Texan, and that's what really made me upset. He came across as an uneducated hillbilly. I really did feel offended by the author for her portrayal of Texans.
The dialogue sounds more fitting for an adult novel as the teenagers in the book speak like they are much older than their 16 and 17 years. As I stated in the above paragraph, I was offended by the character of Brodie. His speech was so stereotypical and offensive. I've never even heard anyone from Texas speak the way Brodie spoke, and I was born and raised here in Texas! I think the author should've done a bit more research about the dialogue and dialect of Texas instead of just stereotyping. Other than that, the dialogue flowed smoothly and freely. The book is fairly violent, and there are some mild sexual situations. There is some swearing as well.
Overall, Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea is an intriguing read with a great plot. The world building is interesting, and the characters are likable even if one was extremely offensive.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who are fans of gothic horror or just horror in general.
<b>I'd give Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea by April Genevieve Tucholke a 3.75 out of 5.</b>
(I purchased a hardcover copy of this book with my own money from Amazon. No review was required).