Search
Search results
Merissa (11953 KP) rated In the Shadow of the Bull (An Ancient Crete Mystery #1) in Books
Jul 17, 2023
IN THE SHADOW OF THE BULL is the first book in the Ancient Crete Mystery series and we start with a wedding and a murder. Martis, the fifteen-year-old sister of the victim is charged by her dead sister's ghost to find out who killed her. If she fails, she will be haunted for nine generations!
Martis is split between her duty to her sister and her need to train for bull-dancing. She is also fifteen, so her attention span isn't that good yet, and she flits from person to person, convinced each one is the killer.
I preferred the historical aspect of this story more than the mystery. For me, it wasn't so much a mystery as a when will Martis figure it out? I did like the ending, with how it tied it up, but I wanted to know more about Bais and Nuia. And what about the barbarians? Would they receive an apology or just be given permission to leave? Maybe that will happen in future books. Although it was explained to a degree, it left me wanting more.
I have no hesitation in recommending an enjoyable book with great attention to detail.
** 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!
Jun 22, 2023
Martis is split between her duty to her sister and her need to train for bull-dancing. She is also fifteen, so her attention span isn't that good yet, and she flits from person to person, convinced each one is the killer.
I preferred the historical aspect of this story more than the mystery. For me, it wasn't so much a mystery as a when will Martis figure it out? I did like the ending, with how it tied it up, but I wanted to know more about Bais and Nuia. And what about the barbarians? Would they receive an apology or just be given permission to leave? Maybe that will happen in future books. Although it was explained to a degree, it left me wanting more.
I have no hesitation in recommending an enjoyable book with great attention to detail.
** 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!
Jun 22, 2023
Go Tell the Bees that I am Gone
Book
Jamie Fraser and Claire Randall were torn apart by the Jacobite Rising in 1746, and it took them...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An ambitious but flawed finale
M. Night Shyamalan is back behind the camera! Quick, run! Joking aside, Shyamalan’s career is as convoluted as his signature third-act twists. Starting off with the fabulous The Sixth Sense and then almost derailing his career with catastrophic failures like The Happening, After Earth and dare I mention it, The Last Airbender, it appeared we had all but lost that once promising directorial flair.
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated The News: A User's Manual in Books
Aug 5, 2018
I believe this book has the wrong title. Let me explain.
Despite having the title “The News: A User’s Manual”, the book reads like a wish-list of how de Botton wants news journalists and media editors to present and publish the news. Furthermore, if it was intended to be read by the layperson, de Botton must have had the dual intention of increasing the lay reader’s vocabulary. Several of the words I looked up in my offline dictionary app weren’t to be found.
I liked how his views were presented though - this short book is split into 8 main topics: politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, consumption and a conclusion. Each topic is split into further sub-topics, and each of the points being made in these sub-topics is numbered and lasts about a page. This organization doesn’t disrupt the fluidity, however, and the way that points are made in such small sections provides the perfect opportunity to pause and reflect on each point made.
It presents the author’s views on what the news should ideally be and how it can enrich us. He made numerous valid points, but for the purposes of this review, I will concentrate on those I consider to be the most important. The book is written for a British audience, using several British news story excerpts to highlight de Botton’s points. His points are all well put and I didn’t really want to have to paraphrase them for this review for that very reason.
Firstly, the perception that political news is boring is not a minor issue. Often there is an important matter which fails to engage us, and we can react more strongly to matters which affect very few people.
Another valid point is how the process of the reader developing views on serious issues on which so little information is actually conveyed, makes us feel like we are being ruled by crooks and idiots who seem to be ignoring logical solutions. The news fails to explain why difficult decisions are so difficult.
On celebrity news, de Botton portrays hero worship as childish and demeaning, a sign that we find ourselves inadequate. He argues that celebrity news should be used as a self-improvement tool, focusing on what we can learn from the individual.
De Botton believes that the purpose of dramatic tragedies should be so we can compare ourselves to the villain, that the stories read like fables and imparted a moral statement. We are a hideously flawed species, he says, and the criminals need to be humanized if we are to learn anything from these kinds of stories.
And on that note, I shall say I have learned something from this book. The contrast de Botton demonstrates between how the news is portrayed and how it ought to be to best enrich us, will ensure I will take his comments into consideration when I read/watch the news or am deciding on my personalization of news received on news apps. The purpose of the editors may be to sell advertising space, but my intention in perceiving the news is to obtain a fair and accurate perspective of the world around me.
Despite having the title “The News: A User’s Manual”, the book reads like a wish-list of how de Botton wants news journalists and media editors to present and publish the news. Furthermore, if it was intended to be read by the layperson, de Botton must have had the dual intention of increasing the lay reader’s vocabulary. Several of the words I looked up in my offline dictionary app weren’t to be found.
I liked how his views were presented though - this short book is split into 8 main topics: politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, consumption and a conclusion. Each topic is split into further sub-topics, and each of the points being made in these sub-topics is numbered and lasts about a page. This organization doesn’t disrupt the fluidity, however, and the way that points are made in such small sections provides the perfect opportunity to pause and reflect on each point made.
It presents the author’s views on what the news should ideally be and how it can enrich us. He made numerous valid points, but for the purposes of this review, I will concentrate on those I consider to be the most important. The book is written for a British audience, using several British news story excerpts to highlight de Botton’s points. His points are all well put and I didn’t really want to have to paraphrase them for this review for that very reason.
Firstly, the perception that political news is boring is not a minor issue. Often there is an important matter which fails to engage us, and we can react more strongly to matters which affect very few people.
Another valid point is how the process of the reader developing views on serious issues on which so little information is actually conveyed, makes us feel like we are being ruled by crooks and idiots who seem to be ignoring logical solutions. The news fails to explain why difficult decisions are so difficult.
On celebrity news, de Botton portrays hero worship as childish and demeaning, a sign that we find ourselves inadequate. He argues that celebrity news should be used as a self-improvement tool, focusing on what we can learn from the individual.
De Botton believes that the purpose of dramatic tragedies should be so we can compare ourselves to the villain, that the stories read like fables and imparted a moral statement. We are a hideously flawed species, he says, and the criminals need to be humanized if we are to learn anything from these kinds of stories.
And on that note, I shall say I have learned something from this book. The contrast de Botton demonstrates between how the news is portrayed and how it ought to be to best enrich us, will ensure I will take his comments into consideration when I read/watch the news or am deciding on my personalization of news received on news apps. The purpose of the editors may be to sell advertising space, but my intention in perceiving the news is to obtain a fair and accurate perspective of the world around me.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021
Hanks Does It Again
Tom Hanks interest in the men who fought in WWII is well known. From his starring role as Capt. Miller is what is (arguably) the definitive film about D-Day, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, to his Executive Producing role in, arguably, the best mini-series ever produced about WWII, BAND OF BROTHERS, Hanks has brought a face to the nameless heroes who fought in the middle of the last century.
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named “Greyhound”, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krause’s instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his “steely resolve” in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most “human” decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanks’ character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a “nit” in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of “character building scenes” that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and it’s mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUT…from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this film’s theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X results…but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named “Greyhound”, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krause’s instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his “steely resolve” in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most “human” decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanks’ character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a “nit” in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of “character building scenes” that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and it’s mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUT…from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this film’s theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X results…but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MarginNote Pro
Productivity and Education
App
*** Reading & Studying will NEVER be the same! *** Welcome to MarginNote. This is a highly powerful...
iReconcile - Checkbook, Budgeting, & Reporting
Finance and Productivity
App
"Keep your finances in check!" with iReconcile™, the most advanced finance management application...
Stock+Option
Finance and Business
App
All-in-One stock market station plus advanced options analysis & research and buy sell money flow....
Notebook - Take Notes, Sync
Productivity and Utilities
App
*An App Store 2016 Best App of the Year* Take notes, add files, create checklists and sketches,...