Search
Search results

One Winter's Kiss
Book
One Winter's Kiss is a standalone Beautiful Nightmare Story. She Warmed His Heart. He Cooled Her...
paranormal romance fantasy fantasy romance bookbuzz

Debbiereadsbook (1421 KP) rated Sloane's List in Books
Dec 19, 2023
high on the cute scale!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Sloane is now an empty nester, after sending her 18 year old daughter off to college. She has a list of ten things she wants to do. She just needs a man to help her. Enter Oscar. He meets her the day before Paige goes off, and is smitten from then on. But Oscar is younger than Sloane, and has a bit of a reputation. What's a girl to do, eh?
Bar one thing, and I will come back to that, I loved this!
It's a really easy read, and I mean that in a very VERY good way.
There were some plot lines I did not see coming, so well played there, but the penny did drop really fast! And some coming at ya like a freaking freight train, and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it. But I loved that! Sometimes, it really is lovely to see it all laid out for you.
It's not overly explicit, and I loved that here, for these two. I was expecting it to be, for some reason, and I loved being proven wrong about what I needed to read at this point in time.
Fairly low on the angst scale, but high on the cute scale and scorching on the warm and fuzzy scale!
I loved that we got to hear from both Sloane and Oscar, but also from Paige (Sloane's daughter) Alex (Oscar's brother) and the mother hen in the apartment complex, Auntie Ernie.
So, what didn't I like? Simple. First person, present tense AND multi point of view. In fact, I very VERY nearly dumped this, once I saw how it was written. So very VERY glad I didn't!
I haven't read anything by this author before, and I think I'd like to read something with a bit more bite.
But still, a very VERY good, 4 star read.
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
Sloane is now an empty nester, after sending her 18 year old daughter off to college. She has a list of ten things she wants to do. She just needs a man to help her. Enter Oscar. He meets her the day before Paige goes off, and is smitten from then on. But Oscar is younger than Sloane, and has a bit of a reputation. What's a girl to do, eh?
Bar one thing, and I will come back to that, I loved this!
It's a really easy read, and I mean that in a very VERY good way.
There were some plot lines I did not see coming, so well played there, but the penny did drop really fast! And some coming at ya like a freaking freight train, and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it. But I loved that! Sometimes, it really is lovely to see it all laid out for you.
It's not overly explicit, and I loved that here, for these two. I was expecting it to be, for some reason, and I loved being proven wrong about what I needed to read at this point in time.
Fairly low on the angst scale, but high on the cute scale and scorching on the warm and fuzzy scale!
I loved that we got to hear from both Sloane and Oscar, but also from Paige (Sloane's daughter) Alex (Oscar's brother) and the mother hen in the apartment complex, Auntie Ernie.
So, what didn't I like? Simple. First person, present tense AND multi point of view. In fact, I very VERY nearly dumped this, once I saw how it was written. So very VERY glad I didn't!
I haven't read anything by this author before, and I think I'd like to read something with a bit more bite.
But still, a very VERY good, 4 star read.
*same worded review will appear elsewhere

Merissa (12822 KP) rated Bleed In The Night (Blood and Bonds #2) in Books
Mar 1, 2024
BLEED IN THE NIGHT is the second book in the Blood and Bonds series and follows Lucien and Tyler, both of whom we met in the previous book.
Tyler has been through a traumatic experience - admittedly of his own making - and hasn't been sleeping since. He wants to know Lucien has been apprehended but no one seems to take him seriously. Taking matters into his own hands, he employs 'Damon' to capture Lucien. As with most things though, Tyler doesn't think it through and soon faces a choice.
I was surprised when I saw it was Lucien and Tyler in this book. I was convinced it would be Darragh and Tom. I do like it when I'm wrong. And this book continued to surprise. Tyler is still a hothead but I learnt more about what makes him tick and the work he does to help those with less than him. He doesn't come across as just a thug anymore. And Lucien? What can I say about him? I love him! He has reasons for the way he is and they are completely understandable. These two are almost touch-starved but when they're together? Yeah, not so much! đ
Although I can understand where they're coming from, I have to say Emory and Co. really dropped the ball with Lucien. There was more understanding from Tyler than there was from them. This certainly differs from the norm where Elders are respected!
I was happy with the ending for Tyler and Lucien, although I hope it's not the last we see of them. I was also shocked by the ending, but it has left me with a desire to continue the series, so I guess it did its job!
Definitely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Feb 20, 2024
Tyler has been through a traumatic experience - admittedly of his own making - and hasn't been sleeping since. He wants to know Lucien has been apprehended but no one seems to take him seriously. Taking matters into his own hands, he employs 'Damon' to capture Lucien. As with most things though, Tyler doesn't think it through and soon faces a choice.
I was surprised when I saw it was Lucien and Tyler in this book. I was convinced it would be Darragh and Tom. I do like it when I'm wrong. And this book continued to surprise. Tyler is still a hothead but I learnt more about what makes him tick and the work he does to help those with less than him. He doesn't come across as just a thug anymore. And Lucien? What can I say about him? I love him! He has reasons for the way he is and they are completely understandable. These two are almost touch-starved but when they're together? Yeah, not so much! đ
Although I can understand where they're coming from, I have to say Emory and Co. really dropped the ball with Lucien. There was more understanding from Tyler than there was from them. This certainly differs from the norm where Elders are respected!
I was happy with the ending for Tyler and Lucien, although I hope it's not the last we see of them. I was also shocked by the ending, but it has left me with a desire to continue the series, so I guess it did its job!
Definitely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Feb 20, 2024

Debbiereadsbook (1421 KP) rated Demon's Obsession (Obsessions #1) in Books
Oct 9, 2024
Silas' tre makes for some fun times!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is the start of a new series by these 2 authors, and I have to say, very different from the Tangled Tentacles and I loved that it is!
Silas goes to town once a week to sing. He can only manage short times away from his tree and the forest, being a dryad. Dakata is a demon, living in the human world, managing music acts. Dakata's demon reacts to Silas, making Dak aware that his Blissful One is near. But others are against the mating. And danger looms.
I just gotta mention the cover! When I got my copy, it didn't have a cover, and I only saw the cover AFTER I read it. It fits, perfectly! The scene it's taken from? Comes over exactly like the cover! Love it!!
I loved this, I really did. It's a bit different, with Silas being a dryad. He is bonded to a tree, and cannot be far from it. The tree talks to Silas, but also is able to move freely. Which makes for some fun times, especially when Dak is near and they get down and dirty! Phew!! Dak's demon talks to the tree too.
I liked that the danger was simple jealousy. No complicated plot with twist and turns to follow. I even liked the way Dak's demon dealt with that threat.
So, I have a couple of questions!
Will Wanda get a book? I mean, she has three trees she is bonded to, will she get three partners?
Will Dougal and George get stories too?? I loved these two and hope they do.
And just who is the goat, in dak's apartment that kicks Merihem in the nuts??!!
It's a little bit out there, but Sayle is becoming a master at the out there troupe!
Loved it, can't wait for more!
5 full and shiny stars.
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
This is the start of a new series by these 2 authors, and I have to say, very different from the Tangled Tentacles and I loved that it is!
Silas goes to town once a week to sing. He can only manage short times away from his tree and the forest, being a dryad. Dakata is a demon, living in the human world, managing music acts. Dakata's demon reacts to Silas, making Dak aware that his Blissful One is near. But others are against the mating. And danger looms.
I just gotta mention the cover! When I got my copy, it didn't have a cover, and I only saw the cover AFTER I read it. It fits, perfectly! The scene it's taken from? Comes over exactly like the cover! Love it!!
I loved this, I really did. It's a bit different, with Silas being a dryad. He is bonded to a tree, and cannot be far from it. The tree talks to Silas, but also is able to move freely. Which makes for some fun times, especially when Dak is near and they get down and dirty! Phew!! Dak's demon talks to the tree too.
I liked that the danger was simple jealousy. No complicated plot with twist and turns to follow. I even liked the way Dak's demon dealt with that threat.
So, I have a couple of questions!
Will Wanda get a book? I mean, she has three trees she is bonded to, will she get three partners?
Will Dougal and George get stories too?? I loved these two and hope they do.
And just who is the goat, in dak's apartment that kicks Merihem in the nuts??!!
It's a little bit out there, but Sayle is becoming a master at the out there troupe!
Loved it, can't wait for more!
5 full and shiny stars.
*same worded review will appear elsewhere

Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
Youâve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last yearâs hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle âThe Snowmanâ which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original âGirl with the Dragon Tattooâ trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two yearâs later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have âA New Dragon Tattoo Storyâ (as the filmâs subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire FoyâŠ. which seems an odd choice, but one which â after you get past the rather odd accent â she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSAâs chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist âspidersâ.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, âThe Girl in the Spiderâs Webâ ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foyâs Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If youâre a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on⊠and then I fear you might fail.
So itâs an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, âThe Danish Girlâ) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, âDonât Breatheâ), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also âDonât Breatheâ).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
Iâve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? Iâd like to think itâs some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CANâT BELIEVE it would be the director! (If Iâm wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant âshame, shame, shameâ!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does itâs level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. Itâs all so pointless. If youâve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly â slightly! â better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I donât think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in âThe Circleâ (which I saw) and was Borg in âBorg McEnroeâ (which I didnât). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication âMilleniumâ but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive âjournalistâ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in âLoganâ, here he looks far too much like his âRicky Gervais sidekickâ persona to be taken seriously: and itâs not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice âclickerâ gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. Itâs not classic Scandi-noir like the original âTattooâ; and itâs not going for the black comedy angle of âHeadhuntersâ (which I saw again last week and loved⊠again!). It falls into a rather âmehâ category. Itâs not a bad eveningâs watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have âA New Dragon Tattoo Storyâ (as the filmâs subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire FoyâŠ. which seems an odd choice, but one which â after you get past the rather odd accent â she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSAâs chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist âspidersâ.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, âThe Girl in the Spiderâs Webâ ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foyâs Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If youâre a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on⊠and then I fear you might fail.
So itâs an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, âThe Danish Girlâ) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, âDonât Breatheâ), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also âDonât Breatheâ).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
Iâve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? Iâd like to think itâs some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CANâT BELIEVE it would be the director! (If Iâm wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant âshame, shame, shameâ!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does itâs level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. Itâs all so pointless. If youâve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly â slightly! â better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I donât think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in âThe Circleâ (which I saw) and was Borg in âBorg McEnroeâ (which I didnât). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication âMilleniumâ but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive âjournalistâ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in âLoganâ, here he looks far too much like his âRicky Gervais sidekickâ persona to be taken seriously: and itâs not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice âclickerâ gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. Itâs not classic Scandi-noir like the original âTattooâ; and itâs not going for the black comedy angle of âHeadhuntersâ (which I saw again last week and loved⊠again!). It falls into a rather âmehâ category. Itâs not a bad eveningâs watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.

Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lords of Chaos (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I saw one trailer for this and at that point I instantly assumed that it wouldn't show at my local Cineworld, but it did, with a surprising amount of showings. The gentleman and I who attended this particular screening really did not look like your typical black metal fans, but then it's always the quiet ones...
In my non-fan status I can't say anything to its accuracy. From what I understand there are disagreements over some of it, the trailer does state "based on truth and lies" so somewhere along the line they know they've taken some necessary artistic license.
Lords Of Chaos is a pretty honest movie, and by that I mean it doesn't sugarcoat anything. There are violent and horrific scenes that any movie looking for a 15 certificate would have looked away at the last minute or done something artistic with the camera angle, but LOC just went "F*** it, zoom in." and I think that was a great benefit to it. I actually found it less shocking for that exact reason. If you can stomach it then seeing what actually happens is a lot less affecting than being left to imagine it. I'm aware that that probably says something horrific about me personally.
I was... put off? by the casting of Rory Culkin as the lead in this. I couldn't honestly tell you why, I've only really seen him in Scream 4 and I love that. His performance from start to finish was incredible, including the voiceovers which were placed in exactly the right places throughout. I was blown away by him when I'd expected to dislike his character. Culkin seems to know exactly where Euronymous is going, he adapts to the changes in him and you see the schemer, the worrier and all the associated emotions that go with them.
Emory Cohen gave an interesting performance as Varg, but I wasn't particularly fond of the character. To see his transformation from almost puppy dog longing to connect before he spirals into paranoia and his ever-expanding need to be the best was intriguing, it ultimately left me with an awkward feeling that I wasn't particularly fond of.
The two of them together made for a good contrast with both characters progressing in opposite directions yet never meeting and being able to connect in the middle. I liked that they both seemed to underestimate the other and that impact brought out very different characteristics in them both. That ultimately led to a strong conclusion to the film and allowed Culkin to really end it with a bang.
The film itself was beautifully shot and many of the shots seemed frivolous at the time but actually allowed for some respite from the carnage and allowed you to take in the gravity of some of the actions.
While Lords Of Chaos is probably not a film I would have ever seen in the past I was actually pleased that I saw it. This regime of seeing (almost) everything that comes out at my cinema has its ups and downs but this was a pretty interesting watch. Culkin performed his socks off and it was a very entertaining surprise. This is a topic that will definitely need some further reading beyond what is portrayed here as I'm certain that to make a film of this suitable for a movie-going audience it would have needed a lot of tweaking from the truth.
What you should do
This is definitely not for the faint hearted, I would absolutely not recommend it to you if you don't like blood, violence or are susceptible to self-harm on screen. If you can stomach all of those things and have an interest in music then I'd say it's worth giving a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Running my own record store looks like it migt be fun, but I don't think that my music taste would make it a very popular shop.
In my non-fan status I can't say anything to its accuracy. From what I understand there are disagreements over some of it, the trailer does state "based on truth and lies" so somewhere along the line they know they've taken some necessary artistic license.
Lords Of Chaos is a pretty honest movie, and by that I mean it doesn't sugarcoat anything. There are violent and horrific scenes that any movie looking for a 15 certificate would have looked away at the last minute or done something artistic with the camera angle, but LOC just went "F*** it, zoom in." and I think that was a great benefit to it. I actually found it less shocking for that exact reason. If you can stomach it then seeing what actually happens is a lot less affecting than being left to imagine it. I'm aware that that probably says something horrific about me personally.
I was... put off? by the casting of Rory Culkin as the lead in this. I couldn't honestly tell you why, I've only really seen him in Scream 4 and I love that. His performance from start to finish was incredible, including the voiceovers which were placed in exactly the right places throughout. I was blown away by him when I'd expected to dislike his character. Culkin seems to know exactly where Euronymous is going, he adapts to the changes in him and you see the schemer, the worrier and all the associated emotions that go with them.
Emory Cohen gave an interesting performance as Varg, but I wasn't particularly fond of the character. To see his transformation from almost puppy dog longing to connect before he spirals into paranoia and his ever-expanding need to be the best was intriguing, it ultimately left me with an awkward feeling that I wasn't particularly fond of.
The two of them together made for a good contrast with both characters progressing in opposite directions yet never meeting and being able to connect in the middle. I liked that they both seemed to underestimate the other and that impact brought out very different characteristics in them both. That ultimately led to a strong conclusion to the film and allowed Culkin to really end it with a bang.
The film itself was beautifully shot and many of the shots seemed frivolous at the time but actually allowed for some respite from the carnage and allowed you to take in the gravity of some of the actions.
While Lords Of Chaos is probably not a film I would have ever seen in the past I was actually pleased that I saw it. This regime of seeing (almost) everything that comes out at my cinema has its ups and downs but this was a pretty interesting watch. Culkin performed his socks off and it was a very entertaining surprise. This is a topic that will definitely need some further reading beyond what is portrayed here as I'm certain that to make a film of this suitable for a movie-going audience it would have needed a lot of tweaking from the truth.
What you should do
This is definitely not for the faint hearted, I would absolutely not recommend it to you if you don't like blood, violence or are susceptible to self-harm on screen. If you can stomach all of those things and have an interest in music then I'd say it's worth giving a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Running my own record store looks like it migt be fun, but I don't think that my music taste would make it a very popular shop.

Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Had this been released on any regular week I'd have seen Joker the day it came out and not been overly bothered by the Twitter frenzy that happened in the aftermath of the opening... but, Joker came out two days into the London Film Festival and that meant I couldn't see it straight away. I ended up taking a day off in the middle of it and going out to have a regular cinema outing, it was only 6 days after release but the barrage of feedback online was enough to make me bored at the thought of seeing it.
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
âą What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
âą I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
âą I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
âą This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
âą I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
âą Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
âą What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
âą I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
âą I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
âą This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
âą I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
âą Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html

Illeana Douglas recommended Easy Rider (1969) in Movies (curated)

Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Superman: Action Comics - The Oz Effect in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I passed on "The Oz Effect" when it first ran in ACTION COMICS back in 2017. The whole "Rebirth" thing intrigued me, but some of the stuff like the Flash/Batman crossover "The Button", just left me cold and bordering on disinterest. When I saw the identity reveal as to the story arc's antagonist, I felt frustrated and disappointing, feeling like "#Facepalm Didn't we do something like this already?!".
Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!
The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.
The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!
Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!
As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!
The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!
What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.
This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.
So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!
I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.
Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!
The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.
The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!
Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!
As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!
The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!
What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.
This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.
So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!
I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.

Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
âHeâs waited for me; Iâve waited for himâ.
A blood-soaked history.
Thereâs such a familiarity with the content of these films that itâs difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtisâs original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably âThe Texas Chain Saw Massacreâ four years earlier booted the 70âs/80âs genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenterâs âHalloweenâ opened the flood-gates⊠or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists â Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstokeâs-own Rhian Rees: âWhere are your loos?â⊠classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an âincidentâ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfieldâs teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow⊠you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene sheâs in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtisâs movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say âthanks for all the fishâ for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute âfavouriteâ babysitter who you canât help but empathise with.
The review.
Itâs very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isnât such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw âtraditionalâ opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror clichĂ© known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) itâs all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that whatâs more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Donât get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few âcover your eyesâ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenterâs classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (youâll know the scene) your âOMG surely notâ nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as âJawsâ did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
Iâm not really a âhorror nutâ but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
Oneâs thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
Thereâs such a familiarity with the content of these films that itâs difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtisâs original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably âThe Texas Chain Saw Massacreâ four years earlier booted the 70âs/80âs genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenterâs âHalloweenâ opened the flood-gates⊠or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists â Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstokeâs-own Rhian Rees: âWhere are your loos?â⊠classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an âincidentâ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfieldâs teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow⊠you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene sheâs in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtisâs movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say âthanks for all the fishâ for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute âfavouriteâ babysitter who you canât help but empathise with.
The review.
Itâs very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isnât such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw âtraditionalâ opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror clichĂ© known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) itâs all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that whatâs more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Donât get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few âcover your eyesâ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenterâs classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (youâll know the scene) your âOMG surely notâ nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as âJawsâ did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
Iâm not really a âhorror nutâ but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
Oneâs thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!