Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Mar 24, 2019
Why does Halloween always look like such fun in the movies?
Whenever you watch any scary movie revolving around Halloween, they always make it look like so much fun where every neighborhood is all decked out and many children are bustling from house to house getting their treats when in reality Halloween is almost non existent any more. The handful of trick-or-treaters we usually get is almost not worth it and it is always over before dusk.
Anyways, finally saw this film tonight and I was pleasantly surprised by it.
Yes, of course, it was very predictable in parts with its dopey unintelligent characters; however, there was enough new ideas and homages to previous films for me to recommend.
Laurie Strode has really seen it all. This film finds her hardened by the events 40 years ago and estranged from her family since she can think of nothing more than getting even and finishing what Michael started all those years ago. As usual, Michael comes home to roost on another Halloween night and only Laurie and family seem up to the task of stopping another sadistic killing rampage from everyone's favorite "Captain Kirk" wannabe.
If it wasn't for Jamie Lee Curtis, this movie probably would've been a letdown. She was born to play the "scream queen" role, although this time looked more like Sarah Connor all brazen and tough with her own home base fortress equipped with a weapon arsenal.
I wonder if Michael is done for good this time? Doubtful.
Anyways, finally saw this film tonight and I was pleasantly surprised by it.
Yes, of course, it was very predictable in parts with its dopey unintelligent characters; however, there was enough new ideas and homages to previous films for me to recommend.
Laurie Strode has really seen it all. This film finds her hardened by the events 40 years ago and estranged from her family since she can think of nothing more than getting even and finishing what Michael started all those years ago. As usual, Michael comes home to roost on another Halloween night and only Laurie and family seem up to the task of stopping another sadistic killing rampage from everyone's favorite "Captain Kirk" wannabe.
If it wasn't for Jamie Lee Curtis, this movie probably would've been a letdown. She was born to play the "scream queen" role, although this time looked more like Sarah Connor all brazen and tough with her own home base fortress equipped with a weapon arsenal.
I wonder if Michael is done for good this time? Doubtful.
Billie Wichkan (118 KP) rated Say You're Sorry (Romantic Suspense, #22; Sacramento, #1) in Books
May 22, 2019
When a serial killer targets Daisy Dawson, he doesn't expect her to fight back. But she does, and she manages to grab the locket he wears around his neck during the struggle. This locket connects to a cult that Agent Gideon Reynolds of the FBI escaped when he was only 13 years old. He is driven to find that cult and expose them, saving the women and children from their psychotic leader's tyranny. This serial killer is Gideon's one tangible connection to the cult. He's assigned to Daisy to protect her from the killer and hopefully draw him out. Daisy and Gideon have undeniable chemistry, and Gideon quickly realizes that Daisy isn't as helpless as he thought she was...
Karen Rose is one of my favorite authors and I just loved this book like all her others!
I just enjoyed this book so much. The author once again has outdone herself on creating a new set of characters and bringing in a couple of old favorites.
Gideon and Daisy are great together and I just love the chemistry and humor that they have with each other.
The twist and turns are just perfect and the suspense had me on the edge of my seat! Once I started this I could not put it down at all. If you have never read a Karen Rose novel now is the perfect time to do so.
I truly can't wait for the continuation of this series!
HIGHLY HIGHLY RECOMMEND!!!
Thank you to Netgalley, Headline and author Karen Rose for sending me the digital ARC of this book in return for my honest review.
Karen Rose is one of my favorite authors and I just loved this book like all her others!
I just enjoyed this book so much. The author once again has outdone herself on creating a new set of characters and bringing in a couple of old favorites.
Gideon and Daisy are great together and I just love the chemistry and humor that they have with each other.
The twist and turns are just perfect and the suspense had me on the edge of my seat! Once I started this I could not put it down at all. If you have never read a Karen Rose novel now is the perfect time to do so.
I truly can't wait for the continuation of this series!
HIGHLY HIGHLY RECOMMEND!!!
Thank you to Netgalley, Headline and author Karen Rose for sending me the digital ARC of this book in return for my honest review.
This is only a fairly short book with a limited focus, but nevertheless I found it very interesting. It's odd really, because opinion on the subject tends to be so polarised that it's easy to lose sight of a few simple facts and some of what Ashdown-Hill presents here should really be so obvious! For starters, for all the association of Bosworth with Richard III he didn't know it was going to happen and obviously didn't go in 'knowing' that he was going to be defeated - hindsight may be a great thing, but not if you want to look at historical events in context!
The Portuguese marriage proposals was something that I did know about, but here it's presented so logically it makes absolute sense. The chosen bride was a princes of Portugal, with a Spanish Infanta also in the playing as a reserve option. Both of these princesses were descended from the legitimate and senior branch of the House of Lancaster! Furthermore, it seems that a Portuguese marriage was also in the offing for Elizabeth of York. That being so, the letter supposedly written by her (reported by Buck, but now seemingly lost) makes more sense as does the confusion over Richard II wanting to marry Elizabeth, his niece, which never made any real sort of sense as, if we accept the truth of the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, then the children of Edward IV by Elizabeth Woodville were undoubtedly illegitimate, so there would be absolutely no point in Richard marrying her. On the other hand, Elizabeth and her sisters were the closest things available to Royal Princesses to be traded on the dynastic marriage market.
The Portuguese marriage proposals was something that I did know about, but here it's presented so logically it makes absolute sense. The chosen bride was a princes of Portugal, with a Spanish Infanta also in the playing as a reserve option. Both of these princesses were descended from the legitimate and senior branch of the House of Lancaster! Furthermore, it seems that a Portuguese marriage was also in the offing for Elizabeth of York. That being so, the letter supposedly written by her (reported by Buck, but now seemingly lost) makes more sense as does the confusion over Richard II wanting to marry Elizabeth, his niece, which never made any real sort of sense as, if we accept the truth of the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, then the children of Edward IV by Elizabeth Woodville were undoubtedly illegitimate, so there would be absolutely no point in Richard marrying her. On the other hand, Elizabeth and her sisters were the closest things available to Royal Princesses to be traded on the dynastic marriage market.
ML
Mei-Mei's Lucky Birthday Noodles: A Loving Story of Adoption, Chinese Culture and a Special Birthday Treat
Shan-Shan Chen and Heidi Goodman
Book
A loving story of adoption, Chinese culture and a special birthday treat Mei-Mei is Chinese but not...
ClareR (5996 KP) rated The Pull of the Stars in Books
Nov 8, 2020
This book, and in particular the Audible version that I listened to, really pulled me into the world of 1918 Dublin. This isn’t a story for the faint-hearted. It’s really graphic and gory in a lot of places, and it portrayed just what life was like for women in Ireland at this time. Childbirth was portrayed as a punishment, babies being still born equally so. This was a time where it was normal for women in Ireland to birth baby after baby: on average ten.
Nurse Julia Power is unmarried at 30 and seems to be happy with that, as she sees women whose bodies are worn out from giving birth so many times and so closely together, women who have been abused by their fathers and forced to bear their children, women who have conceived their babies outside of marriage and will be forced to give them up - as well as young women who have been institutionalised from birth and forced to give up their lives to repay the nuns who raised them through free labour (Magdalene laundries). Like I said, this was no time to be a woman. The abuse and poor treatment of the women on the ward is alluded to, but never explicit.
Whilst most of the story takes place on the quarantined labour ward, we do get a glimpse in to the home life of Nurse Power, and it was interesting to see how the war had impacted on and affected her brother.
This is a beautifully told story packed full of heart. It may not have been my best move to read it during a pandemic, but nevertheless, I absolutely loved it.
Nurse Julia Power is unmarried at 30 and seems to be happy with that, as she sees women whose bodies are worn out from giving birth so many times and so closely together, women who have been abused by their fathers and forced to bear their children, women who have conceived their babies outside of marriage and will be forced to give them up - as well as young women who have been institutionalised from birth and forced to give up their lives to repay the nuns who raised them through free labour (Magdalene laundries). Like I said, this was no time to be a woman. The abuse and poor treatment of the women on the ward is alluded to, but never explicit.
Whilst most of the story takes place on the quarantined labour ward, we do get a glimpse in to the home life of Nurse Power, and it was interesting to see how the war had impacted on and affected her brother.
This is a beautifully told story packed full of heart. It may not have been my best move to read it during a pandemic, but nevertheless, I absolutely loved it.
Mary Ellen Mark recommended Ikiru (1952) in Movies (curated)
Grocery list. Easy shopping list
Shopping and Productivity
App
"Happiness is not in money but in Shopping" said Marilyn Monroe. Comfortable and functional app ...
ClareR (5996 KP) rated Shrines of Gaiety in Books
Dec 5, 2022
What can I write to do this book justice, other than say “just read it?” I have to admit to not having read much Kate Atkinson before - only the first Jackson Brodie novel, which I loved - but I really feel I should read more of her books!
Shrines of Gaiety is set in the 1920’s, post First World War, and encompasses post war life with all of its excesses, poverty, grief and debauchery.
Nellie Coker is a self made woman who owns a series of nightclubs in London. She’s a single mother, and five of her six children help her to run her empire (the sixth is too young). How she came to own these clubs is a mystery. But the chances are that it wasn’t legal money!
Then there are the 14 year old runaways, Freda and Florence, who want to take to the stage to find fame and fortune.
Detective Chief Inspector Frobisher is determined to bring Nellie Coker and her corrupt empire down, as well as the corrupt police officers that support her. He also becomes involved in the search for the two runaways, thanks to Gwendoline Kelling, a librarian who has inherited a considerable amount of money. She’s a friend of one of the runaways sister, and vows to find her.
I won’t just regurgitate the story, that’s no fun, and you need to read this book for yourself! Needless to say, I loved these characters - the whole novel in fact! It’s a gripping, entertaining story, and it was a joy to read.
Very highly recommended.
Oh, and for the book cover fans, it’s a gorgeous one!
Shrines of Gaiety is set in the 1920’s, post First World War, and encompasses post war life with all of its excesses, poverty, grief and debauchery.
Nellie Coker is a self made woman who owns a series of nightclubs in London. She’s a single mother, and five of her six children help her to run her empire (the sixth is too young). How she came to own these clubs is a mystery. But the chances are that it wasn’t legal money!
Then there are the 14 year old runaways, Freda and Florence, who want to take to the stage to find fame and fortune.
Detective Chief Inspector Frobisher is determined to bring Nellie Coker and her corrupt empire down, as well as the corrupt police officers that support her. He also becomes involved in the search for the two runaways, thanks to Gwendoline Kelling, a librarian who has inherited a considerable amount of money. She’s a friend of one of the runaways sister, and vows to find her.
I won’t just regurgitate the story, that’s no fun, and you need to read this book for yourself! Needless to say, I loved these characters - the whole novel in fact! It’s a gripping, entertaining story, and it was a joy to read.
Very highly recommended.
Oh, and for the book cover fans, it’s a gorgeous one!
The Storyteller of Auschwitz
9.0
Rate It
Book
Auschwitz, 1942. ‘When this is all over, you will be able to tell the world what they did to...
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.
Paul (106 KP) May 21, 2019
ChocolateCherry (8 KP) Jun 15, 2019