Search
Search results
Erika (17788 KP) created a video about Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Jun 14, 2019
Entertainment Editor (1988 KP) created a video about State like Sleep (2019) in Movies
Dec 3, 2018
Caffeinated Fae (464 KP) rated Fitbit Versa in Tech
Aug 10, 2018
Color Screen (3 more)
Waterproof
Sleep Tracker
Fitness Tracker
Battery Life (1 more)
Not integrated with apple health
So far so good
I had a first generation Apple Watch and after 3 years it broke on me. When I started my journey into smart watches I kept thinking of all of the things I wanted my Apple Watch to do and everything that I used in functionality. Ultimately, I decided to try the Fitbit Versa.
One of the things that I love about the Fitbit Versa is that it is a sleep tracker along with a fitness tracker. That was the one thing I always felt was missing with my Apple Watch. I also love the fitbit app more than the apple health app. It gives you great insight and it seems a little more thorough information on your health, steps, floors, and what not.
One thing that I wish is that the battery life really was the 4 days that it promised. I tend to find that my Versa will need charging on that 3rd day. The other thing that I wish was offered was integration with the apple heath app. I don't use it often but I like when things actually work together.
All in all, this has a better battery life than the Apple Watch & some pretty cool screens.
One of the things that I love about the Fitbit Versa is that it is a sleep tracker along with a fitness tracker. That was the one thing I always felt was missing with my Apple Watch. I also love the fitbit app more than the apple health app. It gives you great insight and it seems a little more thorough information on your health, steps, floors, and what not.
One thing that I wish is that the battery life really was the 4 days that it promised. I tend to find that my Versa will need charging on that 3rd day. The other thing that I wish was offered was integration with the apple heath app. I don't use it often but I like when things actually work together.
All in all, this has a better battery life than the Apple Watch & some pretty cool screens.
meg (46 KP) rated Fitbit Alta HR Fitness Wristband in Tech
Aug 20, 2018
This is the first fitness tracker I've ever had, and I'm really happy with it. I was expecting it to come charged, which it wasn't, but it charged very quickly. The battery life is pretty good, I only charge it while I'm showering and the charge lasts until my next shower. It was pretty easy to sync to my phone, after I realized I needed to charge it first. The Fitbit app is very easy to use and I love that it tracks my sleep too. Wearing it is much better than I thought it would be. I have very small wrists, but the slim design makes it comfortable. The band is also much more comfortable than I expected.
My reasons for not giving this device a perfect score are minor. You need to tap the face of the device to turn the screen on and flip through the various screens (time, steps, heart rate, etc), and it's kind of finicky and doesn't always engage when I tap, if I don't do it just right. The brightness doesn't compete with a sunny day, so it can be hard to read in that environment. Otherwise, I think it's great and I'm really happy with it.
My reasons for not giving this device a perfect score are minor. You need to tap the face of the device to turn the screen on and flip through the various screens (time, steps, heart rate, etc), and it's kind of finicky and doesn't always engage when I tap, if I don't do it just right. The brightness doesn't compete with a sunny day, so it can be hard to read in that environment. Otherwise, I think it's great and I'm really happy with it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Sarah (7798 KP) Jun 14, 2019
Nickg24 (492 KP) Jun 14, 2019