Search
Search results
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+.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Second Chances in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
<i>Second Chances</i> is a short story by Leigh-Ann Singh about two people who have had rather difficult pasts. Firstly there is Emily Watson who moves to Bay Brook to become the new editor of the <i>Bay Brook Times</i>. She has moved there from New York thus escaping from a bad relationship. The second person is Richard Cambridge whose family owns the newspaper. He initially appears to be a cold-hearted person until it is revealed he has recently lost his wife in a tragic accident.
The tale focuses on Emily and Richard’s relationship, which starts off on shaky ground but improves over time. During the story both characters turn to God to help them with their troubles and begin to find peace with the help of the Saviour. It is not a particularly religious book as the main emphasis is on pointing out that both characters receive the opportunity to have a second chance at life: Richard moving on from the past and returning to the present; and Emily being given the chance at new relationships and becoming “the woman God intended her to be”.
Admittedly <i>Second Chances</i> is very poorly written and ideally ought to have had a lot of editing before publication however the overall storyline is good. It is a shame that more was not done with it.
<i>Second Chances</i> is a short story by Leigh-Ann Singh about two people who have had rather difficult pasts. Firstly there is Emily Watson who moves to Bay Brook to become the new editor of the <i>Bay Brook Times</i>. She has moved there from New York thus escaping from a bad relationship. The second person is Richard Cambridge whose family owns the newspaper. He initially appears to be a cold-hearted person until it is revealed he has recently lost his wife in a tragic accident.
The tale focuses on Emily and Richard’s relationship, which starts off on shaky ground but improves over time. During the story both characters turn to God to help them with their troubles and begin to find peace with the help of the Saviour. It is not a particularly religious book as the main emphasis is on pointing out that both characters receive the opportunity to have a second chance at life: Richard moving on from the past and returning to the present; and Emily being given the chance at new relationships and becoming “the woman God intended her to be”.
Admittedly <i>Second Chances</i> is very poorly written and ideally ought to have had a lot of editing before publication however the overall storyline is good. It is a shame that more was not done with it.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated 31 (2016) in Movies
Feb 3, 2018 (Updated Feb 3, 2018)
Richard Brake (2 more)
Some interesting dialogue
Cliffhanger ending
Blood, guts and profanity... my 3 favorite things
I am and always will be a horror movie fan. And a Rob Zombie fan as well. While most in the horror community dispose the man, and do their best to ignore his reimagining of John Carpenter's beloved Halloween. I get his vision. I understand his process.
In 31, Zombie goes out of his way to remind us all of why he is here in this genre and why he should be here to stay.
The script penned for this flick is nothing short of dreadful, but in a good horror film That's what you want. His dialogue is full of pull no punches vulgarity that would make anyone blush. And his pattern of killing off his stars is brutal to say the least.
Capped with an amazing performance by Richard Brake, who from the beginnng of movie, let's you know that he "ain't no fucking clown!!!".
His ability to capture the true disgustingness that lives in every single one of us, that fire that burns in your body when someone cuts you off when your driving to work. Or bumps into you while walking by. That feeling that says, "Fuck, I'd love to kill that person,"... well he lets the beast out in this film.
He turns 5 mild mannered hippie carnies into vicious animalistic slashers. Killing at first out of that need for survival. Then killing because they had to do it. And finally killing because they were starting to enjoy it.
Zombie does what he does, sets them up to be knocked down as only he can. Chuck I'm some great one liners and awesome profanity filled dialogue, sprinkle it with some over the top kickass blood filled deaths and an acting performance by Richard Brake that I can't help but praise and you have a recipe for a disturbing good time. As Doomhead suggests in the opening sequence of 31. In hell everyone loves popcorn.
In 31, Zombie goes out of his way to remind us all of why he is here in this genre and why he should be here to stay.
The script penned for this flick is nothing short of dreadful, but in a good horror film That's what you want. His dialogue is full of pull no punches vulgarity that would make anyone blush. And his pattern of killing off his stars is brutal to say the least.
Capped with an amazing performance by Richard Brake, who from the beginnng of movie, let's you know that he "ain't no fucking clown!!!".
His ability to capture the true disgustingness that lives in every single one of us, that fire that burns in your body when someone cuts you off when your driving to work. Or bumps into you while walking by. That feeling that says, "Fuck, I'd love to kill that person,"... well he lets the beast out in this film.
He turns 5 mild mannered hippie carnies into vicious animalistic slashers. Killing at first out of that need for survival. Then killing because they had to do it. And finally killing because they were starting to enjoy it.
Zombie does what he does, sets them up to be knocked down as only he can. Chuck I'm some great one liners and awesome profanity filled dialogue, sprinkle it with some over the top kickass blood filled deaths and an acting performance by Richard Brake that I can't help but praise and you have a recipe for a disturbing good time. As Doomhead suggests in the opening sequence of 31. In hell everyone loves popcorn.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Dom Hemingway (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Dom Hemingway’ is a dark comedy-crime drama movie written and directed by Richard
Shepard (better known for directing the pilot episode of Ugly Betty) and stars
Jude Law, Emilia Clarke, Richard E. Grant, and Demian Bichir.
Dom (Jude Law) is a foul-mouthed, short-tempered, and reckless master safe cracker who
is returning to the streets after 12 years in prison. Intent on collecting his reward for
keeping silent while in prison and fueled by massive amounts of alcohol, drugs, and his
massive ego, Dom and his best friend/partner in crime Dickie (Richard E. Grant) travel
though the British and French country sides to rendevous with Dom’s former employeer
Mr. Fontaine. Shortly thereafter though, Don arrives at the conclusion that no amount
of money can replace what hes’ lost and that his one and only priority is to
seek out his long-lost daughter Evelyn (Emilia Clarke).
Now, this movie is definitely a departure from Jude Law’s previous movies. Imagine him
if he were to gain 29 lbs., dress like an evil ‘Fonz’, and then join ‘Motorhead’.
THAT .. is the Jude Law you get to see in this movie. It’s dark, but fun at the same time.
Most definitely NOT something kids should see. It’s full-speed ahead with sex, drugs,
and rock & roll. When the movie does put on the brakes, it slams on the brakes hard!
Watching the character try to acclimate to the world after 12 years in prison and make
peace with his daughter and her family … it’s like watching a champion’s league
soccer match. One minute one team has it, the next minute the other team has it….
You honestly don’t know what’s going to happen next. Me? Personally? I got a kick out of
this one. My only beef is the way the movie ended … if I told you why though, i’d
be spoiling the movie. For that reason, I give the film 3 out of 5 stars.
Again, a great movie … Dark … but also funny. But the ending? It came just too soon.
Shepard (better known for directing the pilot episode of Ugly Betty) and stars
Jude Law, Emilia Clarke, Richard E. Grant, and Demian Bichir.
Dom (Jude Law) is a foul-mouthed, short-tempered, and reckless master safe cracker who
is returning to the streets after 12 years in prison. Intent on collecting his reward for
keeping silent while in prison and fueled by massive amounts of alcohol, drugs, and his
massive ego, Dom and his best friend/partner in crime Dickie (Richard E. Grant) travel
though the British and French country sides to rendevous with Dom’s former employeer
Mr. Fontaine. Shortly thereafter though, Don arrives at the conclusion that no amount
of money can replace what hes’ lost and that his one and only priority is to
seek out his long-lost daughter Evelyn (Emilia Clarke).
Now, this movie is definitely a departure from Jude Law’s previous movies. Imagine him
if he were to gain 29 lbs., dress like an evil ‘Fonz’, and then join ‘Motorhead’.
THAT .. is the Jude Law you get to see in this movie. It’s dark, but fun at the same time.
Most definitely NOT something kids should see. It’s full-speed ahead with sex, drugs,
and rock & roll. When the movie does put on the brakes, it slams on the brakes hard!
Watching the character try to acclimate to the world after 12 years in prison and make
peace with his daughter and her family … it’s like watching a champion’s league
soccer match. One minute one team has it, the next minute the other team has it….
You honestly don’t know what’s going to happen next. Me? Personally? I got a kick out of
this one. My only beef is the way the movie ended … if I told you why though, i’d
be spoiling the movie. For that reason, I give the film 3 out of 5 stars.
Again, a great movie … Dark … but also funny. But the ending? It came just too soon.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Box (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz) and her husband, Arthur Lewis (James Marsden), are having a bad day. She just found out her educational scholarship will be ending and he is not going to become an astronaut even when he fits the bill. It is on this particularly challenging day that a mysterious box arrives on their doorstep. The package contains a button which when pressed is worth a million dollar payout but also will kill a random person unknown to the button pusher. Should they push the button and what happens if they do?
Based on the short story Button, Button by Richard Mathason, “The Box” stays true to Mathason’s one of a kind style. It is an interesting premise, and would make an interesting television episode, but falters as a full-length film.
“The Box” gives almost nothing to viewers, running so far off the original ‘push the button, don’t push the button’ issue as to baffle audiences. The more time goes on the more ridiculous the plot becomes and as a viewer you begin to wonder if the movie will ever end.
Furthering the joylessness of “the Box” is the overabundant use of 1970s décor and objects. Not at all subtle, the film’s need to beat you over the head with the time period is distracting from the plot of this already shaky film. Far to blatant to be unnoticeable, you leave the film not entirely sure what has happened but very sure it happened in the 1970s.
This is not to say that the film doesn’t offer some satisfaction, but the work put into stretching this short story into a full-length feature film leaves many lingering questions for the viewer.
So if you really enjoy a yellowish tint to your film going experience or overly blatant references to the 1970s you should definitely go see “The Box” but if you lack these offbeat qualities I suggest quickly reading the short story.
Based on the short story Button, Button by Richard Mathason, “The Box” stays true to Mathason’s one of a kind style. It is an interesting premise, and would make an interesting television episode, but falters as a full-length film.
“The Box” gives almost nothing to viewers, running so far off the original ‘push the button, don’t push the button’ issue as to baffle audiences. The more time goes on the more ridiculous the plot becomes and as a viewer you begin to wonder if the movie will ever end.
Furthering the joylessness of “the Box” is the overabundant use of 1970s décor and objects. Not at all subtle, the film’s need to beat you over the head with the time period is distracting from the plot of this already shaky film. Far to blatant to be unnoticeable, you leave the film not entirely sure what has happened but very sure it happened in the 1970s.
This is not to say that the film doesn’t offer some satisfaction, but the work put into stretching this short story into a full-length feature film leaves many lingering questions for the viewer.
So if you really enjoy a yellowish tint to your film going experience or overly blatant references to the 1970s you should definitely go see “The Box” but if you lack these offbeat qualities I suggest quickly reading the short story.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Fathom (1967) in Movies
Apr 13, 2019 (Updated Apr 13, 2019)
Light-as-a-soufflé-but-not-as-nourishing swinging 60s spy thriller. Big-haired competitive sky-diver Raquel Welch gets recruited to help recover a priceless Chinese treasure while visiting Spain. Naturally, this involves her wearing a lot of short skirts and bikinis. It soon turns out nearly everyone she meets is lying to her, so who can she trust? (The hunky guy with his name above hers on the poster might be a safe bet.)
Riffs somewhat on the style of Charade, but without the charm or acting ability of the stars in that film. Mostly feels a bit exhausting by modern standards: there's no denying Raquel Welch was a very beautiful woman, but did she really inspire such extremes of instant condescending lechery in every man she ever met? Even Richard Briers can barely keep his tongue in his mouth. Thorough-going chauvinism extends behind the camera, too, as noted - despite being in every scene, and playing the lead role, Welch doesn't even warrant top billing. It kind of passes the time in a very superficial way but it's extremely dated.
Riffs somewhat on the style of Charade, but without the charm or acting ability of the stars in that film. Mostly feels a bit exhausting by modern standards: there's no denying Raquel Welch was a very beautiful woman, but did she really inspire such extremes of instant condescending lechery in every man she ever met? Even Richard Briers can barely keep his tongue in his mouth. Thorough-going chauvinism extends behind the camera, too, as noted - despite being in every scene, and playing the lead role, Welch doesn't even warrant top billing. It kind of passes the time in a very superficial way but it's extremely dated.
Louise (64 KP) rated Roald Dahl's Book of Ghost Stories in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I picked this up around Halloween time wanting some scary reads to get me in the mood. When I saw they were by Roald Dahl himself, I thought I was in for a treat. I was sadly disappointed, reading the introduction I found that this was not the case, however I continued on as I thought it would be interesting to read some different authors.
The book consisted of 14 short stories, some longer than others and some quiet spooky whilst the others were just a bit dark.
Here is a list of the stories in the book:
W.S by L.P.Hartley
Harry by Rosemary Timperley
The Corner shop by Cynthia Asquith
In the Tube by E.F.Benson
Christmas meeting by Rosemary Timperley
Elias and the Draug by Jonas Lie
Playmates by A.M. Burrage
Ringing the changes by Robert Aickman
The Telephone by Mary Treadgold
The Ghost of a Hand by J.Sheridan Le Fanu
The Sweeper by A.M Burrage
On the Brighton Road by Richard Middleton
Afterward by Edith Warton
The Upper Berth by Marion Crawford
The scariest one for me was the Ghost of a hand, that could be because I was reading it at 1am in the morning with everyone asleep, the sounds of the house creaking and the wind outside added to the spookiness.
My top three are The Ghost of a Hand, Harry and Ringing the Changes,however they weren't great. I felt really let down by this selection of short stories, they didn't seem to have very satisfying ends and they were somewhat predictable.
Also there is an introduction from Roald Dahl himself stating that he read over 700 short stories trying to find the best, I seriously can't believe these were the best ones he found and then he was rambling on about women being better at writing ghost stories and men being better at general fiction which I felt was irrelevant but I suppose he had a certain amount of words to fulfil.
Maybe I am being a little harsh, seeing as the book is 30 years old and the stories are even older than that.
Let me know if you have read this book, and what you thought.
Overall I gave this 3 out of 5 stars
The book consisted of 14 short stories, some longer than others and some quiet spooky whilst the others were just a bit dark.
Here is a list of the stories in the book:
W.S by L.P.Hartley
Harry by Rosemary Timperley
The Corner shop by Cynthia Asquith
In the Tube by E.F.Benson
Christmas meeting by Rosemary Timperley
Elias and the Draug by Jonas Lie
Playmates by A.M. Burrage
Ringing the changes by Robert Aickman
The Telephone by Mary Treadgold
The Ghost of a Hand by J.Sheridan Le Fanu
The Sweeper by A.M Burrage
On the Brighton Road by Richard Middleton
Afterward by Edith Warton
The Upper Berth by Marion Crawford
The scariest one for me was the Ghost of a hand, that could be because I was reading it at 1am in the morning with everyone asleep, the sounds of the house creaking and the wind outside added to the spookiness.
My top three are The Ghost of a Hand, Harry and Ringing the Changes,however they weren't great. I felt really let down by this selection of short stories, they didn't seem to have very satisfying ends and they were somewhat predictable.
Also there is an introduction from Roald Dahl himself stating that he read over 700 short stories trying to find the best, I seriously can't believe these were the best ones he found and then he was rambling on about women being better at writing ghost stories and men being better at general fiction which I felt was irrelevant but I suppose he had a certain amount of words to fulfil.
Maybe I am being a little harsh, seeing as the book is 30 years old and the stories are even older than that.
Let me know if you have read this book, and what you thought.
Overall I gave this 3 out of 5 stars
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Castlevania - Season 1 in TV
Mar 20, 2020
The first season of Castlevania could be more accurately described as a 'teaser-season'. It's four episodes acts as a set up for what is to come, introducing us to the key players in the war between man and vampire.
The episodes run for around 25 minutes, meaning that the season has a limited time to establish what it needs to, and it does this pretty effectively. A decent script ensures that the three main protagonists Trevor Belmont (Richard Armitage), Sypha (Alejandra Reynoso) and Alucard (James Callis) are all immediately likable, and even gives an incredibly sympathetic villain in Dracula. There's also a nice sense of humour running underneath all of the dramatics.
The animation style shows signs of budget restriction on occasion, but for the most part is easy to take in. A lot of close ups on characters show off some nice detail, long shots of locations look great, as do the combat scenes. To darker colour choices work well with the gothic setting, and the frequent strong violence.
Above all, this short but sweet season leaves the viewer wanting more, which was surely the aim in the first place!
The episodes run for around 25 minutes, meaning that the season has a limited time to establish what it needs to, and it does this pretty effectively. A decent script ensures that the three main protagonists Trevor Belmont (Richard Armitage), Sypha (Alejandra Reynoso) and Alucard (James Callis) are all immediately likable, and even gives an incredibly sympathetic villain in Dracula. There's also a nice sense of humour running underneath all of the dramatics.
The animation style shows signs of budget restriction on occasion, but for the most part is easy to take in. A lot of close ups on characters show off some nice detail, long shots of locations look great, as do the combat scenes. To darker colour choices work well with the gothic setting, and the frequent strong violence.
Above all, this short but sweet season leaves the viewer wanting more, which was surely the aim in the first place!
Deborah (162 KP) rated Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses in Books
Dec 21, 2018
For starters, the book is entitled Bosworth Field & the Wars of the Roses. Discussion of Bosworth is pretty much restricted to one short chapter and about the first third of the book is taken up with an over-detailed account of the events leading up to the Wars of the Roses; if Rowse is concerned about 'Wars of the Roses' being a misnomer, perhaps he should look to his own title! Yes, the events from the disposition of Richard II in 1399 and the usurpation of his throne by Bolingbroke do have an impact on later events, but a third of the book? Do we really need to know the ins and outs of Sir John Oldcastle's Lollard leanings - I fail to see how this is relevant.
Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!
He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.
Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.
So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.
Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!
He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.
Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.
So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Mindhunter - Season 1 in TV
Oct 15, 2017 (Updated Oct 15, 2017)
A sum total of nothing
Totally disappointed with this series. It's slow and at times seems completely pointless. The premise sounds fantastic - two behavioural psychologists set up a team within the FBI to establish the first idea of serial killers, finding patterns in speech and action from notorious convicts such as Edmund Kemper and Richard Speck, in order to create a pioneering guide into forensic psychology. It is based on the true crime book Mind Hunter: Inside The FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit written by Mark Olshaker and John E. Douglas.
The series is produced by David Fincher and Charlize Theron, so you would hope for something rather spectacular. Alas, it just completely falls short, each episode seems to just waste away into nothingness and the only thread there is, is the irritating behaviour of the main character who seems to be an arrogant narcissist himself and seems to completely unravel by the end of the series.
There's also a mysterious character throughout the series that doesn't come to fruition so you're left literally scratching your head wondering why the hell he was used in the first place. The acting is the only part where I can say, without a doubt, is extraordinary but that's it.
The series is produced by David Fincher and Charlize Theron, so you would hope for something rather spectacular. Alas, it just completely falls short, each episode seems to just waste away into nothingness and the only thread there is, is the irritating behaviour of the main character who seems to be an arrogant narcissist himself and seems to completely unravel by the end of the series.
There's also a mysterious character throughout the series that doesn't come to fruition so you're left literally scratching your head wondering why the hell he was used in the first place. The acting is the only part where I can say, without a doubt, is extraordinary but that's it.