Search
Search results
Alice (117 KP) rated The Thursday Murder Club in Books
Mar 3, 2021
I received an eARC of this book from NetGalley and Penguin Books for review purposes
I love Richard Osman so I so wanted to love this book but truthfully, I struggled! I'm going to chock it up to the fact that I'm just not a mystery reader so that aspect didn't even keep me hooked. I guess this cosy mystery was just too cosy that I ended up drifting off to sleep more than once and if this wasn't an arc I would have seriously considered DNF-ing which I really didn't want to say! It picked up pace a lot by the halfway mark though and I actually found myself actually invested in the story and I did enjoy all the twists and turns that occurred and finding out just why everyone did what they did but I just didn't love it unfortunately!
I love Richard Osman so I so wanted to love this book but truthfully, I struggled! I'm going to chock it up to the fact that I'm just not a mystery reader so that aspect didn't even keep me hooked. I guess this cosy mystery was just too cosy that I ended up drifting off to sleep more than once and if this wasn't an arc I would have seriously considered DNF-ing which I really didn't want to say! It picked up pace a lot by the halfway mark though and I actually found myself actually invested in the story and I did enjoy all the twists and turns that occurred and finding out just why everyone did what they did but I just didn't love it unfortunately!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Weekend at Bernie's (1989) in Movies
May 1, 2018
Could Have Been Better
Two friends show up at their boss Bernie's beachhouse for a weekend retreat only to find Bernie dead. To maintain innocence, they decide to go through with the weekend while hiding Bernie in plain sight for all to see.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated What Richard Did (2013) in Movies
Mar 26, 2018
Could Have Been Better
Teenage Richard Carlsen (Jack Reynor) is faced with terrible consequences after events at a party go awry. What Richard Did makes the mistake of assuming that its plot alone would be enough to hold the interest of the audience. Lack of intrigue is its ultimate downfall.
Acting: 10
One thing that wasn't lacking was strong acting performances. The cast was excellent from the top down. Reynor shines in his role as Richard having to express and master an array of emotions. He effortlessly controls scenes, evoking the proper emotion from the audience.
Beginning: 7
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
A multitude of beautiful one-shots were captured throughout the film. It helps when the ocean and sunsets are your backdrop, but those images still have to be captured just right at an appealing angle. Shot of the cast having an innocent good time at their parties helps you to warm up to the crew instantly and remember similar times.
Conflict: 4
While there is some initial friction when we uncover what the heart of the story is about, things taper out from there. There wasn't enough conflict to keep me interested. The movie moves straightforward towards its resolution like an arrow, not really creating much more intrigue along the way.
Genre: 6
I give it credit for its fork in the road, but I have definitely seen better dramas. Dramatic film is supposed to leave an impact and this one...just left me. There was potential there for more.
Memorability: 2
I would have scored this even lower, however, I like the depths of humanity that were touched on through Richard's character. The film explores the reality of what a crisis would probably look like: Us looking out for ourselves first before we think of others. Besides that, there was nothing else that stood out for me.
Pace: 7
As I stated earlier, the film goes through a long lull that it never fully rebounds from. The lack of conflict slows things way down and makes it hard to remain engaged. Had there been more points of intrigue or crisis depth, the pace would probably have righted itself.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 4
If it's one thing I hate, it's ambiguous endings that leave you scratching your head. Expect that here. I won't ruin it, but I will say that I was hoping to have some questions answered by the time the credits started rolling. Unfortunately, the ending left me completely and utterly in the dark.
Overall: 68
I was hoping to like this a lot more and was sadly disappointed. It's not a top notch drama, but easily could have been with just a few more cogs in the wheel. Definitely one you can skip.
Acting: 10
One thing that wasn't lacking was strong acting performances. The cast was excellent from the top down. Reynor shines in his role as Richard having to express and master an array of emotions. He effortlessly controls scenes, evoking the proper emotion from the audience.
Beginning: 7
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
A multitude of beautiful one-shots were captured throughout the film. It helps when the ocean and sunsets are your backdrop, but those images still have to be captured just right at an appealing angle. Shot of the cast having an innocent good time at their parties helps you to warm up to the crew instantly and remember similar times.
Conflict: 4
While there is some initial friction when we uncover what the heart of the story is about, things taper out from there. There wasn't enough conflict to keep me interested. The movie moves straightforward towards its resolution like an arrow, not really creating much more intrigue along the way.
Genre: 6
I give it credit for its fork in the road, but I have definitely seen better dramas. Dramatic film is supposed to leave an impact and this one...just left me. There was potential there for more.
Memorability: 2
I would have scored this even lower, however, I like the depths of humanity that were touched on through Richard's character. The film explores the reality of what a crisis would probably look like: Us looking out for ourselves first before we think of others. Besides that, there was nothing else that stood out for me.
Pace: 7
As I stated earlier, the film goes through a long lull that it never fully rebounds from. The lack of conflict slows things way down and makes it hard to remain engaged. Had there been more points of intrigue or crisis depth, the pace would probably have righted itself.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 4
If it's one thing I hate, it's ambiguous endings that leave you scratching your head. Expect that here. I won't ruin it, but I will say that I was hoping to have some questions answered by the time the credits started rolling. Unfortunately, the ending left me completely and utterly in the dark.
Overall: 68
I was hoping to like this a lot more and was sadly disappointed. It's not a top notch drama, but easily could have been with just a few more cogs in the wheel. Definitely one you can skip.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Mellow paced - nothing special
89 year old Director/Actor Clint Eastwood has mellowed with age. He seems at peace with himself and prefers to work at a pace that he sets. His latest Directing effort - RICHARD JEWELL - has that sort of mellowness. It takes it time to tell it's story with no real urgency to it.
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
TheBookMother (105 KP) rated Unravelling Oliver in Books
May 17, 2019
It's as if Richard Hillman came back from the dead, you will not put it down.
I picked this little gem up on a supermarket fundraising bookshelf.
I was abit a dubious to begin with as it was quite short for a standard crime novel that I am normally used too at just 230 pages. I did worry it would be a rushed cliche but boy, was I wrong.
I have grown up on Midsummer Murders and Agatha Christie and it felt like a fresh voice on a classic crime thriller rather than the standard norm from Liz Nugent.
To everyone they seemed a happy and successful couple until one night Oliver beats his loving wife into a coma.
We are then thrown into a sad and neglected past, tragic events and secrets that have now suddenly caught up with Oliver.
The pace of the book is exquisite. Right from the first page you are thrown in to quite a dark act being commited leaving you with only one question.
Why did he do it?
The story is told from numerous character voices and POV each sharing their experiences and opinions of Oliver including Oliver himself each recounting past events right up until after the attack on Alice.
Each account over laps and we are taken back to summer in the 1970s on a French vineyard, growing up during that time in Ireland and the views of the time.
I enjoyed the that the themes of having a baby out of wedlock, grief, race, mental health, expectations, promiscuity and homosexuality were all present which really added to you imagining what the views were at the varying time periods covered throughout the book.
Hauntingly, the only person we do not hear from is Alice which adds to the tension as the outcome of the attack isn't mentioned until quite a way through the book.
Aside from the fact that you are introduced to Oliver committing a heinous act and brutally admitting that he expected more of a reaction for the first time he beat his wife he is not a likable character. You are waiting for it all to come crashing down around him and his 'privileged life' even after you find out about his past and as the it is unravelled, so is he. Think Richard Hillman from Coronation Street villain, someone you cannot help but resent.
Clever, dark and unexpected I couldn't put this down and consumed the lot in a day or so. The pace and easy readability of the book left me wanting to keep reading to a point of keeping the kids busy with a snack and Netflix while I could consume multiple chapters in the corner of the room!
It's just want I want in a crime novel; a good villain, a clever plot and a few twists along the way and an even more surprising ending which leaves you thinking perhaps there was a little bit of good in there after all?!
I was abit a dubious to begin with as it was quite short for a standard crime novel that I am normally used too at just 230 pages. I did worry it would be a rushed cliche but boy, was I wrong.
I have grown up on Midsummer Murders and Agatha Christie and it felt like a fresh voice on a classic crime thriller rather than the standard norm from Liz Nugent.
To everyone they seemed a happy and successful couple until one night Oliver beats his loving wife into a coma.
We are then thrown into a sad and neglected past, tragic events and secrets that have now suddenly caught up with Oliver.
The pace of the book is exquisite. Right from the first page you are thrown in to quite a dark act being commited leaving you with only one question.
Why did he do it?
The story is told from numerous character voices and POV each sharing their experiences and opinions of Oliver including Oliver himself each recounting past events right up until after the attack on Alice.
Each account over laps and we are taken back to summer in the 1970s on a French vineyard, growing up during that time in Ireland and the views of the time.
I enjoyed the that the themes of having a baby out of wedlock, grief, race, mental health, expectations, promiscuity and homosexuality were all present which really added to you imagining what the views were at the varying time periods covered throughout the book.
Hauntingly, the only person we do not hear from is Alice which adds to the tension as the outcome of the attack isn't mentioned until quite a way through the book.
Aside from the fact that you are introduced to Oliver committing a heinous act and brutally admitting that he expected more of a reaction for the first time he beat his wife he is not a likable character. You are waiting for it all to come crashing down around him and his 'privileged life' even after you find out about his past and as the it is unravelled, so is he. Think Richard Hillman from Coronation Street villain, someone you cannot help but resent.
Clever, dark and unexpected I couldn't put this down and consumed the lot in a day or so. The pace and easy readability of the book left me wanting to keep reading to a point of keeping the kids busy with a snack and Netflix while I could consume multiple chapters in the corner of the room!
It's just want I want in a crime novel; a good villain, a clever plot and a few twists along the way and an even more surprising ending which leaves you thinking perhaps there was a little bit of good in there after all?!
David McK (3185 KP) rated The Long Walk in Books
Nov 13, 2022
I like going for long walks.
Not sure I'd like to participate in The Long Walk, though!
An early King novel, writing under the pseudonym Richard Bachamn, this is (or was, I think, at the time of writing) a near-future-set dystopian novel where the national pastime has become The Long Walk that happens once a year, where 100 teenager contestants (all male, although I don't know whether that's part of the rules or not!) participate in The Long Walk: basically, walk for days on end without being allowed to drop below a certain pace (4 miles per hour), and with 3 warnings given before you're out for good.
Out out, as in that (more modern) episode of Dr Who with the Weakest Link ripoff - shot by the soldiers pacing the Walkers in their relative safety and comfort.
The novel, as a whole, relies on character development, which there is no denying happens throughout. I just wish, well, that something actually *happened* (apart from a few brief scenes), and that more background had been given into how this state of affairs came about.
It also has a very open-ended 'ending' (it just sort of stops), which is a matter of taste whether you prefer that or not - personally, I could have done with a bit more clarity around that!
Not sure I'd like to participate in The Long Walk, though!
An early King novel, writing under the pseudonym Richard Bachamn, this is (or was, I think, at the time of writing) a near-future-set dystopian novel where the national pastime has become The Long Walk that happens once a year, where 100 teenager contestants (all male, although I don't know whether that's part of the rules or not!) participate in The Long Walk: basically, walk for days on end without being allowed to drop below a certain pace (4 miles per hour), and with 3 warnings given before you're out for good.
Out out, as in that (more modern) episode of Dr Who with the Weakest Link ripoff - shot by the soldiers pacing the Walkers in their relative safety and comfort.
The novel, as a whole, relies on character development, which there is no denying happens throughout. I just wish, well, that something actually *happened* (apart from a few brief scenes), and that more background had been given into how this state of affairs came about.
It also has a very open-ended 'ending' (it just sort of stops), which is a matter of taste whether you prefer that or not - personally, I could have done with a bit more clarity around that!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Silver Streak (1976) in Movies
Jun 7, 2020
The start of a wonderful comedic partnership
Most people remember Gene Wilder as the frazzled haired wild man in such Mel Brooks classic films as THE PRODUCERS, BLAZING SADDLES and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Others will recall him as the mad genius that held our attention in WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, but there was a 3rd phase to Wilder's career - his unlikely partnership with Richard Pryor - that started with 1976's SILVER STREAK.
Set aboard the titular passenger train, SILVER STREAK is part Alfred Hitchcock "wrong man" suspense thriller, part comedy and part action flick with strong performances at the center anchoring the action.
Surprisingly, Wilder brings a sincere quality to his "everyman" hero of this tale. His book editor, George Caldwell, just wants a quiet 2 1/2 day trip on the train from Los Angeles to Chicago. You root for George from the start. Wilder's performance is deftly tailored to this movie, keeping a lid on his more frenetic energy that helps keep his character grounded. He pairs nicely with Jill Clayburgh (remember her from the '70's?) as a women he meets (and falls in love with) along the way. Clayburgh burst into the spotlight with this performance - and the 2 have tremendous chemistry together.
They are joined by a bevy of wonderful character actors - Ray Walston, Richard "Jaws" Kiel, Ned Beatty, Clifton James, Valerie Curtin, Fred Willard and the great Scatman Crothers. All bring life and energy to this film. Patrick McGoohan is perfectly cast as the villain of the piece. His "buttoned-up" bad guy is the perfect balance to the Wilder's character.
But, of course, the person who steals this film is the great Richard Pryor as Grover T. Muldoon, a petty thief, con-man and "street-wise" hood who aids George in defeating the bad guys. Pryor doesn't show up in this movie until about 1/2 way through, but when he does, the energy (and pace) of this film picks up considerably and the roller coaster ride begins. The comedic partnership between Wilder and Pryor is magnificent, they play off each other very well and they will end up pairing together in 3 other films after this.
Director Arthur Hiller (THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY) does a strong, professional job of keeping the movie moving, keeping events grounded until a thrilling conclusion that is satisfying, indeed.
A fun action-thriller that is perfect summer fodder.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set aboard the titular passenger train, SILVER STREAK is part Alfred Hitchcock "wrong man" suspense thriller, part comedy and part action flick with strong performances at the center anchoring the action.
Surprisingly, Wilder brings a sincere quality to his "everyman" hero of this tale. His book editor, George Caldwell, just wants a quiet 2 1/2 day trip on the train from Los Angeles to Chicago. You root for George from the start. Wilder's performance is deftly tailored to this movie, keeping a lid on his more frenetic energy that helps keep his character grounded. He pairs nicely with Jill Clayburgh (remember her from the '70's?) as a women he meets (and falls in love with) along the way. Clayburgh burst into the spotlight with this performance - and the 2 have tremendous chemistry together.
They are joined by a bevy of wonderful character actors - Ray Walston, Richard "Jaws" Kiel, Ned Beatty, Clifton James, Valerie Curtin, Fred Willard and the great Scatman Crothers. All bring life and energy to this film. Patrick McGoohan is perfectly cast as the villain of the piece. His "buttoned-up" bad guy is the perfect balance to the Wilder's character.
But, of course, the person who steals this film is the great Richard Pryor as Grover T. Muldoon, a petty thief, con-man and "street-wise" hood who aids George in defeating the bad guys. Pryor doesn't show up in this movie until about 1/2 way through, but when he does, the energy (and pace) of this film picks up considerably and the roller coaster ride begins. The comedic partnership between Wilder and Pryor is magnificent, they play off each other very well and they will end up pairing together in 3 other films after this.
Director Arthur Hiller (THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY) does a strong, professional job of keeping the movie moving, keeping events grounded until a thrilling conclusion that is satisfying, indeed.
A fun action-thriller that is perfect summer fodder.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Stone of Destiny: A Sherlock Holmes Adventure in Books
Jul 30, 2018
Fans of Sherlock Holmes, fans of mystery, fans of adventure and suspense - this might be your next favorite book! Now, I have never read a Sherlock Holmes book before, so I can’t compare this book to the original books from Arthur Conan Doyle. But, what I will do for you is tell you all I thought about this book!
The story begins when during the funeral of Queen Victoria, a group of Irish separatists steal the Coronation Stone, on which every royal has been crowned. To retrieve this important object, the royals will hire Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery. Holmes and his friend Watson travel to Ireland and try to infiltrate the Irish Republican Brotherhood, a group they think is responsible for all that happened.
Even though this is a Sherlock Holmes book, we actually unravel the story through a Watson-first-person point of view. He, to me, is a very interesting character, even though he follows Holmes like a puppy and doesn’t seem to have a personal opinion.
As for Sherlock Holmes, even though I really like the mysterious aura about him, and how smart he can be - I also see him as one of the rude aristocrats that refuse to speak to other people that seem to be lower in the hierarchy to them. This is of course, not presented in the book in any way - but I simply had that impression.
I loved the beginning, and I loved the mystery and suspense throughout the whole book. I was never ahead of the book, and my assumptions were never correct. I loved how the author kept us in the dark right until the end.
The small things I didn’t like though, were the slow pace - I have to admit, the pace was really slow for me, and I couldn’t wait until a chapter is finished to see if there would be more action. Then, even the action scenes weren’t as thrilling as I would expect them to be. And finally, there were no big plot twists, which I think we might have used in the book.
But - we did have a lovely mystery solving story, and we had a lot of history information floating around. We also had another book with Sherlock Holmes, that for you - lovers of the Sherlock Holmes books will of course be something you enjoy.
I greatly recommend it to you if you love the good old Sherlock Holmes adventures!
Many thanks to the author, Richard T. Ryan, for sending me an e-copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
The story begins when during the funeral of Queen Victoria, a group of Irish separatists steal the Coronation Stone, on which every royal has been crowned. To retrieve this important object, the royals will hire Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery. Holmes and his friend Watson travel to Ireland and try to infiltrate the Irish Republican Brotherhood, a group they think is responsible for all that happened.
Even though this is a Sherlock Holmes book, we actually unravel the story through a Watson-first-person point of view. He, to me, is a very interesting character, even though he follows Holmes like a puppy and doesn’t seem to have a personal opinion.
As for Sherlock Holmes, even though I really like the mysterious aura about him, and how smart he can be - I also see him as one of the rude aristocrats that refuse to speak to other people that seem to be lower in the hierarchy to them. This is of course, not presented in the book in any way - but I simply had that impression.
I loved the beginning, and I loved the mystery and suspense throughout the whole book. I was never ahead of the book, and my assumptions were never correct. I loved how the author kept us in the dark right until the end.
The small things I didn’t like though, were the slow pace - I have to admit, the pace was really slow for me, and I couldn’t wait until a chapter is finished to see if there would be more action. Then, even the action scenes weren’t as thrilling as I would expect them to be. And finally, there were no big plot twists, which I think we might have used in the book.
But - we did have a lovely mystery solving story, and we had a lot of history information floating around. We also had another book with Sherlock Holmes, that for you - lovers of the Sherlock Holmes books will of course be something you enjoy.
I greatly recommend it to you if you love the good old Sherlock Holmes adventures!
Many thanks to the author, Richard T. Ryan, for sending me an e-copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Gwendy's Button Box in Books
Nov 4, 2018
Interesting Plot (2 more)
Great Characters
An Easy Read
A Nice Short Read
I was on the hunt for my next great read from my local library. While browsing the books, I came across Gwendy's Button Box by Stephen King and Richard Chizmar. The synopsis definitely caught my attention. I'm glad I found this book because I loved it! I also loved the illustrations peppered throughout the book.
The pacing for Gwendy's Button Box was spot on. It flowed at such a nice even pace. Not once did I find myself becoming too bored or wondering what had just happened.
The world building and plot are written superbly. This is a short read, and all of the chapters are short as well. However, the plot is still strong and told in a way that answered all my questions. The world building is believable, and I found myself wanting a button box but also wondering if I'd want all that responsibility. The plot is as follows. Gwendy, an overweight 12 year old is tired of being made fun of because of her size. One day while exercising, she encounters a man in a black hat. He gives her a box with button on top. It is not a normal box though. It seems to have powers. Before long, Gwendy is popular, thin, beautiful, and everything is going swimmingly for her. In time, events start to happen that make her think the box isn't all it's cracked up to be. Gwendy is left wondering what life would have been like without the box, and she comes to resent it. Will Gwendy be able to live life without the box after it's done so much for her?
Gwendy's Button Box focuses mainly on the titular character. We get to see her starting out as a 12 year old, and we read about her growing up throughout the years. I loved Gwendy, and I loved her thought process and how curious she was about the box. It was interesting seeing the change in her through the years and how she matured. I found her to be fleshed out well enough to be enjoyable to read about. The minor characters mentioned throughout the book are also well written, and each adds something to the story however minor. I enjoyed Mr. Farris. I still can't figure out his motives for giving Gwendy the button box or where he came from, but I believe that's the beauty of Gwendy's Button Box. It does leave it up for speculation on purpose.
Trigger warnings for Gwendy's Button Box include swearing (although not much), violence, attempted rape (though not graphic), mentions of nudity, and murder.
Overall, Gwendy's Button Box is a short yet interesting read. It held my attention throughout and was very enjoyable. I would definitely recommend Gwendy's Button Box by Stephen King and Richard Chizmar to everyone aged 16+.
The pacing for Gwendy's Button Box was spot on. It flowed at such a nice even pace. Not once did I find myself becoming too bored or wondering what had just happened.
The world building and plot are written superbly. This is a short read, and all of the chapters are short as well. However, the plot is still strong and told in a way that answered all my questions. The world building is believable, and I found myself wanting a button box but also wondering if I'd want all that responsibility. The plot is as follows. Gwendy, an overweight 12 year old is tired of being made fun of because of her size. One day while exercising, she encounters a man in a black hat. He gives her a box with button on top. It is not a normal box though. It seems to have powers. Before long, Gwendy is popular, thin, beautiful, and everything is going swimmingly for her. In time, events start to happen that make her think the box isn't all it's cracked up to be. Gwendy is left wondering what life would have been like without the box, and she comes to resent it. Will Gwendy be able to live life without the box after it's done so much for her?
Gwendy's Button Box focuses mainly on the titular character. We get to see her starting out as a 12 year old, and we read about her growing up throughout the years. I loved Gwendy, and I loved her thought process and how curious she was about the box. It was interesting seeing the change in her through the years and how she matured. I found her to be fleshed out well enough to be enjoyable to read about. The minor characters mentioned throughout the book are also well written, and each adds something to the story however minor. I enjoyed Mr. Farris. I still can't figure out his motives for giving Gwendy the button box or where he came from, but I believe that's the beauty of Gwendy's Button Box. It does leave it up for speculation on purpose.
Trigger warnings for Gwendy's Button Box include swearing (although not much), violence, attempted rape (though not graphic), mentions of nudity, and murder.
Overall, Gwendy's Button Box is a short yet interesting read. It held my attention throughout and was very enjoyable. I would definitely recommend Gwendy's Button Box by Stephen King and Richard Chizmar to everyone aged 16+.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Ex-government assassin Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) takes it upon himself to right the wrongs of those who have been exploited. He spends his days driving a Lyft around making chance encounters with people. When one of those people is in need he will go to any length to dispense justice. His brand of justice is brutal and swift but he always give the oppressors the chance to redeem themselves. He does this for people passing though his life but when his best friend, and one of the only former colleges to know his alive, Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) is killed while on an investigation he sets out to dispatch vengeance rather than justice. He will stop at nothing to find out why his friend was murdered and eliminate those responsible. Robert must first reveal that he is still alive to his former partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal) so he can have access to the investigation. Once he has access the pair will try and find the killers and exact revenge. That is before the killers find them.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.