Search
Unbuilt Utopian Cities 1460 to 1900: Reconstructing Their Architecture and Political Philosophy
Book
Bringing together ten utopian works that mark important points in the history and an evolution in...
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
Honestly, I thought this was best entry in the series since Carpenter's Original.
Halloween II opens up with a hospital sequence referencing the original Halloween II, and honestly, this hospital scene was not only the most intense and frightening sequence from a Halloween movie, but it was also one of the most frightening and intense sequences I've seen period.
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
Kyera (8 KP) rated Rise of the Elgen (Michael Vey, #2) in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Michael is a 14-year-old who has electrical powers and is joined in this novel by his fellow Electro-Clan members. In this book, Michael and his friends must battle the Elgen again in order to save his mother from their clutches. It was nice to see the world we had come to inhabit in the first book expanded in the second. We got a deeper look into the Elgen, their plans and one of their other secret locations. If you haven't read the first book, this may spoil you so please read that (or my first review) before you read the second book's review.
I felt the same way about the second book as I did the first. The overall idea of this story was very intriguing, although I found the writing to be lacking at times. One of the biggest elements that drew me out of the story was the author's inability to choose a word other than <i>said</i> to describe when a person was speaking. It became frustrating to listen to the characters talk when the entire page just repeated, "he said... she said... then they said... he said again." By that point, I was pretty over the word said. It definitely detracted from the story, which I found enjoyable overall.
There was a little more character development in this novel than the first, as I found myself connecting to the characters more. Although I still don't find that they are three-dimensional enough, I do care if they succeed or not. The relationship between Michael and Taylor was very insta-love-y in the first book, but I liked seeing more support for it in this book. It is starting to feel more authentic and less like an overused trope.
As there are five other books in the series, I hope that the character development and world building will be improved upon. It definitely continued from the first to the second book and I felt more knowledgeable about the world as the story continued. The author definitely writes for a younger audience; the writing style was not as developed or mature as I would expect for a young adult reader.
I would recommend it to middle-grade readers, as well as young adult/teen readers who enjoy their fantasy books in a familiar setting. Don't expect flowery writing or deep characterization, just let the story take you on a fun, easy journey.
I felt the same way about the second book as I did the first. The overall idea of this story was very intriguing, although I found the writing to be lacking at times. One of the biggest elements that drew me out of the story was the author's inability to choose a word other than <i>said</i> to describe when a person was speaking. It became frustrating to listen to the characters talk when the entire page just repeated, "he said... she said... then they said... he said again." By that point, I was pretty over the word said. It definitely detracted from the story, which I found enjoyable overall.
There was a little more character development in this novel than the first, as I found myself connecting to the characters more. Although I still don't find that they are three-dimensional enough, I do care if they succeed or not. The relationship between Michael and Taylor was very insta-love-y in the first book, but I liked seeing more support for it in this book. It is starting to feel more authentic and less like an overused trope.
As there are five other books in the series, I hope that the character development and world building will be improved upon. It definitely continued from the first to the second book and I felt more knowledgeable about the world as the story continued. The author definitely writes for a younger audience; the writing style was not as developed or mature as I would expect for a young adult reader.
I would recommend it to middle-grade readers, as well as young adult/teen readers who enjoy their fantasy books in a familiar setting. Don't expect flowery writing or deep characterization, just let the story take you on a fun, easy journey.
GA
Gandhi: An Anti-Biography of a Great Soul
Book
This book is not just another biography of Gandhi. It is valuable because it offers us a French...
TR
The Routledge Handbook of International Beat Literature
Book
There was a time when "the Beats" seemed a familiar, even fixed, pantheon: Kerouac, Ginsberg,...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated 21 Bridges (2019) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
I found 21 Bridges to be a pretty entertaining action flick, even if it is a relatively predictable straight shooter.
The narrative revolves around two small time criminals gunning down 8 police officers during an escalated robbery, causing the whole of Manhattan to shut down as the NYPD hunt them before they can flee the city.
Like any cop thriller worth it's salt, it's of course not that simple, and has some twists and turns along the way. This is probably the main issue I had with 21 Bridges - the twist is easy to see from a mile off, and the pretty standard action sequences means that it doesn't particularly elevate itself above the competition.
The strengths here lie in the cast. Chadwick Boseman is a brilliant lead as detective Andre Davis, who is heading up the entire investigation. Stephan James is also great as Michael, one of the robbers. He's a man completely out of his depth, and is a sympathetic "antagonist". There are also some decent turns from J.K. Simmons, Sienna Miller, Taylor Kitsch, and Keith David.
All of the performances keep 21 Bridges pretty grounded for an action film, it's more of a thriller in that respect.
I'd say it's worth a watch, you could certainly do a lot worse when it comes to New York cop dramas.
The narrative revolves around two small time criminals gunning down 8 police officers during an escalated robbery, causing the whole of Manhattan to shut down as the NYPD hunt them before they can flee the city.
Like any cop thriller worth it's salt, it's of course not that simple, and has some twists and turns along the way. This is probably the main issue I had with 21 Bridges - the twist is easy to see from a mile off, and the pretty standard action sequences means that it doesn't particularly elevate itself above the competition.
The strengths here lie in the cast. Chadwick Boseman is a brilliant lead as detective Andre Davis, who is heading up the entire investigation. Stephan James is also great as Michael, one of the robbers. He's a man completely out of his depth, and is a sympathetic "antagonist". There are also some decent turns from J.K. Simmons, Sienna Miller, Taylor Kitsch, and Keith David.
All of the performances keep 21 Bridges pretty grounded for an action film, it's more of a thriller in that respect.
I'd say it's worth a watch, you could certainly do a lot worse when it comes to New York cop dramas.
TP
The Plays and Poems of Nicholas Rowe: The Early Plays: Volume I: The Early Plays
Stephen Bernard, Rebecca Bullard and John McTague
Book
Nicholas Rowe was the first Poet Laureate of the Georgian era. A fascinating and important yet...
Project Leadership
Sarah Coleman and Donnie MacNicol
Book
Project Leadership, the classic, best-selling textbook originally by Wendy Briner, Michael Geddes...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
AndâŚwhat is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he letâs them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. ButâŚon the other handâŚhe has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the filmâs tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And thatâs too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audienceâs enjoyment - it feels like a series of âacting scenesâ and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russellâs films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, youâll be saying to yourself âthatâs wonderfully actedâ for you wonât be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russellâs issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, heâd have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, itâs an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for âwhat could have beenâ.
Letter Grade: B (âCâ for the first half, âAâ for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
AndâŚwhat is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he letâs them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. ButâŚon the other handâŚhe has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the filmâs tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And thatâs too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audienceâs enjoyment - it feels like a series of âacting scenesâ and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russellâs films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, youâll be saying to yourself âthatâs wonderfully actedâ for you wonât be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russellâs issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, heâd have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, itâs an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for âwhat could have beenâ.
Letter Grade: B (âCâ for the first half, âAâ for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Marty Feldman: The Biography of a Comedy Legend
Book
Mike Myers thinks he was "a genius", while John Cleese regards him as "a true cultural icon". He was...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) Jul 21, 2020