Search
My Shit Life So Far
Book
Ever since being brought up by The Beatles, Frankie Boyle has been a tremendous liar. Join him on...
CRNE Exam Prep
Business and Education
App
*********** 50% off for a limited time ************** CRNE Exam Prep is to help you prepare the...
Now and at the Hour of Our Death
Susana Moreira Marques and Julia Sanches
Book
"This book is fearless and luminous and full of grace; it travels to the edge of death and finds...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Halloween II (1981) in Movies
Mar 5, 2021
There's a fair amount to love about Halloween II, a sequel set on the same night as the original, immediately following that films ending.
For instance, I can admire the style that director Rick Rosenthal was going for, attempting to make his sequel feel as much like the first film as possible, the idea being that you could watch both back to back.
There a few creepy shots here and there. One that really sticks is the shot of Michael in the darkness just before the poor nurse get killed with a syringe. Another is Michael on the CCTV when he first enters the hospital. Another is when Laurie see Michael across the parking lot underneath a red light. and then there's Michael with blood running out of the eye holes in his mask, followed by him walking out of that one room completely ablaze. It's all to do with Michael then! Once again, this movie showcases how his straightforward design is striking and rightly iconic.
It's nice to see Jamie Lee Curtis back as Laurie, and Donald Pleasance back as Loomis. All in all, it does truly feel like a sequel, but there's something missing.
The original is one of my favourite horrors ever made, and Halloween II, despite its positives, just fails to capture the same essence. This is partly to do with the script. It feels like a lot of the actors were just told to ad lib all their lines or something. The tension building scenes go on for a little too long also, ironically voiding a few scenes of said tension. It's feels like the first film in everything but execution pretty much.
It's a heavily flawed sequel, but it's still a decent watch, and is certainly one of the better sequels in this long running series. It deserves credit for the bit near the beginning where Loomis shouts "you don't know what death is!" before the synth heavy version of the theme tune kicks in, that was badass.
For instance, I can admire the style that director Rick Rosenthal was going for, attempting to make his sequel feel as much like the first film as possible, the idea being that you could watch both back to back.
There a few creepy shots here and there. One that really sticks is the shot of Michael in the darkness just before the poor nurse get killed with a syringe. Another is Michael on the CCTV when he first enters the hospital. Another is when Laurie see Michael across the parking lot underneath a red light. and then there's Michael with blood running out of the eye holes in his mask, followed by him walking out of that one room completely ablaze. It's all to do with Michael then! Once again, this movie showcases how his straightforward design is striking and rightly iconic.
It's nice to see Jamie Lee Curtis back as Laurie, and Donald Pleasance back as Loomis. All in all, it does truly feel like a sequel, but there's something missing.
The original is one of my favourite horrors ever made, and Halloween II, despite its positives, just fails to capture the same essence. This is partly to do with the script. It feels like a lot of the actors were just told to ad lib all their lines or something. The tension building scenes go on for a little too long also, ironically voiding a few scenes of said tension. It's feels like the first film in everything but execution pretty much.
It's a heavily flawed sequel, but it's still a decent watch, and is certainly one of the better sequels in this long running series. It deserves credit for the bit near the beginning where Loomis shouts "you don't know what death is!" before the synth heavy version of the theme tune kicks in, that was badass.
ClareR (5603 KP) rated Case Histories (Jackson Brodie, #1) in Books
Jul 21, 2021
I quite honestly don’t know why it took me so long to get round to reading/ listening to these books. I listened to Case Histories on my library’s audiobook app, and loved how the narrator, Susan Jameson, brought the story to life. The cases at first sight seem unrelated, but coincidences occur as the story goes on. They’re all quite quirky characters, which I enjoyed, particularly the sisters from case one. They ask Jackson to find out what happened to their little sister 40 years ago. Whilst sleeping in a tent in the back garden, three year old Olivia went missing. When find her beloved Blue Mouse in their deceased fathers desk drawer, they start to think that there is more to her disappearance - and it’s close to home.
Case two is about the death of a young woman at her fathers solicitors offices. After many years, the man who murdered her in broad daylight in the busy office, has still never been found.
The third case is a famous one. Tanya, a nurse, had been given the task of bringing up her niece after her sister murders her husband with an axe. However, Tanya has lost contact with the child (now a woman), and wants to find her again.
The fourth case is that of Jacksons own sister. After their mothers death, Jacksons sister is murdered on her way home from work. The murderer is never found.
It was really interesting to see how the cases wove together as the story went on, but what I really found interesting were the flashbacks to around the times of the murders.
Many of the characters are pretty unpleasant - except for the very moral Jackson Brodie - and I found that an interesting contrast.
I think that this is a series that I’m going to have to read more of. I like the Brodie character, and I’m intrigued to see if the next book is set up in a similar way.
Case two is about the death of a young woman at her fathers solicitors offices. After many years, the man who murdered her in broad daylight in the busy office, has still never been found.
The third case is a famous one. Tanya, a nurse, had been given the task of bringing up her niece after her sister murders her husband with an axe. However, Tanya has lost contact with the child (now a woman), and wants to find her again.
The fourth case is that of Jacksons own sister. After their mothers death, Jacksons sister is murdered on her way home from work. The murderer is never found.
It was really interesting to see how the cases wove together as the story went on, but what I really found interesting were the flashbacks to around the times of the murders.
Many of the characters are pretty unpleasant - except for the very moral Jackson Brodie - and I found that an interesting contrast.
I think that this is a series that I’m going to have to read more of. I like the Brodie character, and I’m intrigued to see if the next book is set up in a similar way.
ClareR (5603 KP) rated The Flatshare in Books
Sep 1, 2019
A great feel-good story - and who knew I liked romance?!
In The Flatshare, Tiffy and Leon share a flat and a bed, and yet they’re never in the flat or bed at the same time. This is the only way for Tiffy to be able to afford to live in Central London, and Leon has his own financial reasons for sharing his flat.
Tiffy has recently split up with her rich boyfriend, and she has to leave his flat. Her friends offer her their sofa, but Tiffy realises that she needs her independence (and a decent bed!) - even if it is a bit of an odd arrangement. Actually, when I was reading about it in the book, it didn’t seem at all unreasonable!
Tiffy is a great character. She’s an assistant editor for a publisher specialising in Arts and Crafts, and she’s a real individual - in both her dress and her attitude towards life. She’s also discovering that her ex-boyfriend may not have been as lovely as she thought.
Leon wants someone to share his flat so that he can pay the legal fees for his brothers court appeal. He works the permanent night shift at a local hospice as a nurse (the pay is better for this shift), and he’s a man of few words. He loves his job and he’s very caring towards his patients. And he’s a lovely man.
I really enjoyed this. It’s not your typical rom-com. I would say that there’s a serious side to it as well. I did laugh a lot, but I also worried along with Leon about his younger brother, and joined Tiffy’s friends in their dislike of her decidedly dodgy ex.
So if you’re not usually in to rom-coms, this might just be the book for you too. It was a really very pleasant surprise!
Many thanks to a Readers First for my copy of this book.
Tiffy has recently split up with her rich boyfriend, and she has to leave his flat. Her friends offer her their sofa, but Tiffy realises that she needs her independence (and a decent bed!) - even if it is a bit of an odd arrangement. Actually, when I was reading about it in the book, it didn’t seem at all unreasonable!
Tiffy is a great character. She’s an assistant editor for a publisher specialising in Arts and Crafts, and she’s a real individual - in both her dress and her attitude towards life. She’s also discovering that her ex-boyfriend may not have been as lovely as she thought.
Leon wants someone to share his flat so that he can pay the legal fees for his brothers court appeal. He works the permanent night shift at a local hospice as a nurse (the pay is better for this shift), and he’s a man of few words. He loves his job and he’s very caring towards his patients. And he’s a lovely man.
I really enjoyed this. It’s not your typical rom-com. I would say that there’s a serious side to it as well. I did laugh a lot, but I also worried along with Leon about his younger brother, and joined Tiffy’s friends in their dislike of her decidedly dodgy ex.
So if you’re not usually in to rom-coms, this might just be the book for you too. It was a really very pleasant surprise!
Many thanks to a Readers First for my copy of this book.
foodpanda - Food Delivery
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
8.0
Rate It
App
TAKE YOUR FIRST BITE OF FOODPANDA Craving something delicious? If there's one thing we know it’s...
My Town : Hospital
Education and Games
App
Experience the excitement of a busy hospital in My Town : Hospital! There are endless stories your...
Dr. Panda School
Education and Games
App
Are you ready for class? CREATE YOUR OWN STORIES! Let your imagination run wild in Dr. Panda...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Joker follows Arthur Fleck’s descent from a somewhat mentally troubled comedian to becoming the Joker, arch Batman villain and force for chaos.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.