Search
Search results
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Running on the Cracks in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Rating: 3-ish/5
<b> My Summary: </b> Leo is scared. She’s not quite sure what to think of her kooky uncle anymore, and she doesn’t want to take chances. What if he does something to her… Leo runs away. She goes in search of her grandparents, her only living relatives. She accidently gets her photo in the newspaper, and had to hide. She meets a boy named Finlay, who seems to be the one who’s going to put an end to her new freedom… at first anyway. But then Finlay becomes a friend to Leo, and he becomes her key to staying away from her uncle. Leo will do anything to keep from being found and being sent back there. She ends up staying with a crazy lady who is hospitable enough, but refuses to take her medication and whose friends aren’t much better. Then she realizes that her Uncle is on her tail. How will she stay away?
<b> What I thought: </b> Running on the Cracks was an enjoyable read. When I first saw the cover, I imagined an action filled YA novel with a lot of suspense. Although there was suspense, it wasn’t anything that got your blood racing. I thoroughly enjoyed this book when I sat down to read it, but I had to be in the right mood to do it.
<b> The Writing: </b> The format of writing was different than I’d read before, but it was very engaging. It switched viewpoints, had pieces of the story in written-story form (meaning a whole chapter was just a letter or a newspaper article or an e-mail), had whole sections where it was just dialogue (those were my favorite sections—mostly it was when characters were on the phone, and they were all very funny) and even had a few chapters from the “crazy” person’s perspective (it’s always interesting being inside the head of a madman…). Also, the writer has written the book in an accent, meaning that some of the words are spelled wrong so that you can hear it pronounced with an accent in your head—quite engaging and welcoming. The writing was good, but as it was foreign it was a little odd (i.e. “lead” instead of “leash” etc), but not in a bad way.
<b> The Characters: </b> The characters were pretty relatable. I felt scared for Leo when she was running from her Uncle, and sorry for Finlay when we was stressed about lying to his mom. The characters were really cool, well developed, and some of them were kooky. I really liked Leo and Finlay. They had such cool names! I loved the “President”, but the “Godfather” was my favorite. He was just so… weirdly cool… (I don’t know, maybe that’s because I’m a little insane myself). Not too much, I rather enjoyed it actually. It’s always fun to read something a little different.
<b> The Plot: </b> The plot was pretty believable, and I know that (sadly) there are true stories like this all the time. I don’t know how the police are over in Scotland but I doubt very seriously that Leo would have gotten away with hiding from the American police for as long as she did from the Scottish police (but that’s my opinion as a police and spy novel writer). Although there was suggestion of the Uncle trying to sexually abuse women in the book, it never actually happened, and it was very age appropriate.
<b> My Recommendation: </b> I would recommend it to a friend ages 11-15, maybe even a little younger, but not older than that. Again, I enjoyed it when I sat down to read it, but it wasn’t quite my personal attention level (I’m 18). All in all, I enjoyed this book a lot.
<i> Thank you to Henry Holt In Group for supplying my review copy of this book! </i>
For more reviews and giveaways,, please visit haleymathiot.blogspot.com
~Haleyknitz
<a href="http://haleymathiot.blogspot.com/2009/09/win-lockdown.html">PS- don’t forget—enter my giveaway for LOCKDOWN before October 20!
</a>
<b> My Summary: </b> Leo is scared. She’s not quite sure what to think of her kooky uncle anymore, and she doesn’t want to take chances. What if he does something to her… Leo runs away. She goes in search of her grandparents, her only living relatives. She accidently gets her photo in the newspaper, and had to hide. She meets a boy named Finlay, who seems to be the one who’s going to put an end to her new freedom… at first anyway. But then Finlay becomes a friend to Leo, and he becomes her key to staying away from her uncle. Leo will do anything to keep from being found and being sent back there. She ends up staying with a crazy lady who is hospitable enough, but refuses to take her medication and whose friends aren’t much better. Then she realizes that her Uncle is on her tail. How will she stay away?
<b> What I thought: </b> Running on the Cracks was an enjoyable read. When I first saw the cover, I imagined an action filled YA novel with a lot of suspense. Although there was suspense, it wasn’t anything that got your blood racing. I thoroughly enjoyed this book when I sat down to read it, but I had to be in the right mood to do it.
<b> The Writing: </b> The format of writing was different than I’d read before, but it was very engaging. It switched viewpoints, had pieces of the story in written-story form (meaning a whole chapter was just a letter or a newspaper article or an e-mail), had whole sections where it was just dialogue (those were my favorite sections—mostly it was when characters were on the phone, and they were all very funny) and even had a few chapters from the “crazy” person’s perspective (it’s always interesting being inside the head of a madman…). Also, the writer has written the book in an accent, meaning that some of the words are spelled wrong so that you can hear it pronounced with an accent in your head—quite engaging and welcoming. The writing was good, but as it was foreign it was a little odd (i.e. “lead” instead of “leash” etc), but not in a bad way.
<b> The Characters: </b> The characters were pretty relatable. I felt scared for Leo when she was running from her Uncle, and sorry for Finlay when we was stressed about lying to his mom. The characters were really cool, well developed, and some of them were kooky. I really liked Leo and Finlay. They had such cool names! I loved the “President”, but the “Godfather” was my favorite. He was just so… weirdly cool… (I don’t know, maybe that’s because I’m a little insane myself). Not too much, I rather enjoyed it actually. It’s always fun to read something a little different.
<b> The Plot: </b> The plot was pretty believable, and I know that (sadly) there are true stories like this all the time. I don’t know how the police are over in Scotland but I doubt very seriously that Leo would have gotten away with hiding from the American police for as long as she did from the Scottish police (but that’s my opinion as a police and spy novel writer). Although there was suggestion of the Uncle trying to sexually abuse women in the book, it never actually happened, and it was very age appropriate.
<b> My Recommendation: </b> I would recommend it to a friend ages 11-15, maybe even a little younger, but not older than that. Again, I enjoyed it when I sat down to read it, but it wasn’t quite my personal attention level (I’m 18). All in all, I enjoyed this book a lot.
<i> Thank you to Henry Holt In Group for supplying my review copy of this book! </i>
For more reviews and giveaways,, please visit haleymathiot.blogspot.com
~Haleyknitz
<a href="http://haleymathiot.blogspot.com/2009/09/win-lockdown.html">PS- don’t forget—enter my giveaway for LOCKDOWN before October 20!
</a>
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Salt (2010) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Disappointing 80's retread...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Salt. The trailer looked rubbish, dated and starring Angelina Jolie, was never going to tickle my fancy. Reminding me of Rodger Donaldson's, Kevin Costner starrer, No Way Out, I felt that the attempt may be to bring that 80′s thriller to a new audience but instead we got a very confused tome. Firstly, I will cover the good points, which start with the script.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Character development (2 more)
Background
Story and plot = top notch
Amazing and will leave you on the edge of your seat!
As many of you know, I've struggled at getting into audio books but I think I've finally started to come around to the idea of them. I was given two free months of Scribd to try out and this is the second audio book that I've listened too.
At first, I wasn't too big of a fan of the narrator. She just sounded like she didn't give any care in the world and to be honest, her voice was very high pitched and rather annoying. Well, once we got into a little bit deeper into the story, the narrator actually grew on me. Don't judge a book by it's cover, I know I know. I'm rather bad at that haha.
“You have to learn to look at the whole of something, not just the parts.”
One thing that I rather liked about Warcross was that it delved into depression and loss a tad bit. Authors that can work that angle along with including a mass amount of diversity into their stories really are amazing human beings.
I absolutely love reading YA that includes diversity such as different ethnicity and LGBTQ+. Warcross has it both, and even has the main character, Emika, as a POC. This really brought the novel together and created this colorful novel that left me on the edge of my seat.
“It is hard to describe loss to someone who has never experienced it, impossible to explain all the ways it changes you. But for those who have, not a single word is needed.”
Warcross begins by following Emika in her journey of catching someone who has been illegally gambling within the game Warcross. She works as a bounty hunter and is rather good at her job. But, the main problem that she has is there are so many bounty hunters out there, so jobs are not quite an easy thing to get. This doesn't help Emika's debt problem at all. She's on the verge of losing her apartment and being put on the side of the street.
Opening ceremony night comes for the Warcross championships and Emika accidentally hacks into it. The creator of Warcross, Hideo Tanaka, ends up contacting her and hiring Emika as a bounty hunter to catch Zero. But what Emika doesn't realize is that she will be joining the championship as well to act as a spy. She is thrown in and immediately picked as a wildcard. But the journey she's about to take isn't what it's all put out to be.
Danger lurks behind every corner and people are not who they truly say they are. For Emika's in a life and death battle that could drastically change the future.
“Everyone has a different way of escaping the dark stillness of their mind.”
Characters:
Emika Chen - bounty hunter, hacker, the main character who has rainbow dyed hair and is an absolute rockin' badass.
Hideo Tanaka - billionaire creator of Warcross and eventually a love interest to Emika
Sasuke Tanaka - brother to Hideo, he was kidnapped at a young age and nobody knows if he's even alive.
Zero - the antagonist, or so we thought. Emika is trying to catch him.
Hammie, Roshan, DJ Ren, & Asher - members of the Phoenix Riders
Reasons why I rated it 5 stars:
1. The plot was top notch, absolutely amazing, and one of the best I've seen in awhile!
2. I will be rereading this once I get my hands on a physical copy. I may even re-listen to the audio book. It was just that good!
3. There is so much character and story development within the story and Marie Lu is a breath of fresh air. Not only did she include development, but there was background and representation!
4. Grammar and spelling isn't being counted against because I have no idea. It sounded good, but the narrator could have fixed stuff. Like I literally have no idea what the writing is like since I listened to Warcross on audio book.
5. The overall story left me wanting more of Warcross, more of Emika, more of what's in store for Emika. I just NEED MORE!
"Everything's science fiction until someone makes it science fact.”
At first, I wasn't too big of a fan of the narrator. She just sounded like she didn't give any care in the world and to be honest, her voice was very high pitched and rather annoying. Well, once we got into a little bit deeper into the story, the narrator actually grew on me. Don't judge a book by it's cover, I know I know. I'm rather bad at that haha.
“You have to learn to look at the whole of something, not just the parts.”
One thing that I rather liked about Warcross was that it delved into depression and loss a tad bit. Authors that can work that angle along with including a mass amount of diversity into their stories really are amazing human beings.
I absolutely love reading YA that includes diversity such as different ethnicity and LGBTQ+. Warcross has it both, and even has the main character, Emika, as a POC. This really brought the novel together and created this colorful novel that left me on the edge of my seat.
“It is hard to describe loss to someone who has never experienced it, impossible to explain all the ways it changes you. But for those who have, not a single word is needed.”
Warcross begins by following Emika in her journey of catching someone who has been illegally gambling within the game Warcross. She works as a bounty hunter and is rather good at her job. But, the main problem that she has is there are so many bounty hunters out there, so jobs are not quite an easy thing to get. This doesn't help Emika's debt problem at all. She's on the verge of losing her apartment and being put on the side of the street.
Opening ceremony night comes for the Warcross championships and Emika accidentally hacks into it. The creator of Warcross, Hideo Tanaka, ends up contacting her and hiring Emika as a bounty hunter to catch Zero. But what Emika doesn't realize is that she will be joining the championship as well to act as a spy. She is thrown in and immediately picked as a wildcard. But the journey she's about to take isn't what it's all put out to be.
Danger lurks behind every corner and people are not who they truly say they are. For Emika's in a life and death battle that could drastically change the future.
“Everyone has a different way of escaping the dark stillness of their mind.”
Characters:
Emika Chen - bounty hunter, hacker, the main character who has rainbow dyed hair and is an absolute rockin' badass.
Hideo Tanaka - billionaire creator of Warcross and eventually a love interest to Emika
Sasuke Tanaka - brother to Hideo, he was kidnapped at a young age and nobody knows if he's even alive.
Zero - the antagonist, or so we thought. Emika is trying to catch him.
Hammie, Roshan, DJ Ren, & Asher - members of the Phoenix Riders
Reasons why I rated it 5 stars:
1. The plot was top notch, absolutely amazing, and one of the best I've seen in awhile!
2. I will be rereading this once I get my hands on a physical copy. I may even re-listen to the audio book. It was just that good!
3. There is so much character and story development within the story and Marie Lu is a breath of fresh air. Not only did she include development, but there was background and representation!
4. Grammar and spelling isn't being counted against because I have no idea. It sounded good, but the narrator could have fixed stuff. Like I literally have no idea what the writing is like since I listened to Warcross on audio book.
5. The overall story left me wanting more of Warcross, more of Emika, more of what's in store for Emika. I just NEED MORE!
"Everything's science fiction until someone makes it science fact.”
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Feb 19, 2018
Inwardly focused SuperHero film mostly works.
THE BLACK PANTHER is the first entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that relies - predominantly - on characters (and actors) of color to carry it. Of the main characters, only 2 are Caucasian, the rest of the cast (including almost all of the supporting cast and the extras) - AND the Director are people of color. This has, rightfully so, created a "buzz" about the significance of this. It is a watershed moment for SuperHero films (much like last year's WONDER WOMAN was a watershed for a female led SuperHero film). But the question remains - is it a good film?
The answer: Good Enough.
Diving deeper into the character/hero T'Challa/Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) who was first introduced in CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. In this film, we learn more about the backstory of this man/character as well as the world in which he lives and the burdens he bears. It also, interestingly enough, pretty much ignores the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe for much of it's 2 hour 14 minute timeline. It mostly concerns itself with interior issues in the hidden kingdom of Wakanda and I think this tactic is a welcome relief from the giant, CGI-laden, characters-heavy Marvel films of recent memory.
Director/Writer Ryan Coogler (CREED/FRUITVALE STATION) decides to focus the attention of this film inward, rather than outward and we are rewarded with a rich, Shakespearean family drama that works because of it's simplicity.
Much of the effectiveness is due to the charismatic cast that has been drawn to this picture because of the significance of it as well as the richness of the characters they inhabit. Bozeman is regal and strong in the title role - no hint of the suffering, "I don't want this" SuperHero angst so often seen in these types of film. Academy Award winner Lupito Nyong'o joins in just as strong and independently as Nakia a "Spy" and erstwhile romantic foil for T'Challa - though Coogler is wise to avoid the "will they/won't they" cliche as well as eliminates, entirely, the "damsel in distress" subplot that would have been so tempting.
Helping these two out are a veritable "who's who" of actors of color - Angela Bassett, Forrest Whitaker, current Best Actor nominee Daniel Kaluuya and Sterling K. Brown - all turn out for fun (albeit brief) turns where each one of them gets a chance to show what they can do. Special notice should be made to Danai Gurira (TV's kick-ass Michonne in THE WALKING DEAD) as Okoye - T'Challa's chief general and bodyguard who must choose duty over honor (or does she) and, especially, Letitia Wright as T'Challa's younger, wise-cracking sister - who also happens to be the "Q" of this film. She jumped off the screen and shone brightly (but not so bright as to wash things out) in every scene she was in.
And...of course...there is Coogler favorite Michael B. Jordan (he's been in all of Coogler's major motion picture) as the villain of the piece - Erik Killmonger (the name says it all). Jordan does a nice job of bringing 3 dimensions to a character that was written a little too 2 dimension-ally, if you ask me. This character could have just been an "angry young man" cliche, but with Jordan, he becomes something much, much more.
This being a Marvel SuperHero film, the Special Effects are terrific, showing a highly secretive, highly technolized Wakanda that is hidden beneath the surface.
Is it a perfect film? Well...no. This is, in essence, a "family drama" with some hi-tech action scenes and the obligatory "two armies fighting" finale, and while the acting is good enough to hold interest throughout, I would have liked to have seen a little more action thrown in.
But...ignoring the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was a good move - as was casting such strong, believable and likeable film actors.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The answer: Good Enough.
Diving deeper into the character/hero T'Challa/Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) who was first introduced in CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. In this film, we learn more about the backstory of this man/character as well as the world in which he lives and the burdens he bears. It also, interestingly enough, pretty much ignores the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe for much of it's 2 hour 14 minute timeline. It mostly concerns itself with interior issues in the hidden kingdom of Wakanda and I think this tactic is a welcome relief from the giant, CGI-laden, characters-heavy Marvel films of recent memory.
Director/Writer Ryan Coogler (CREED/FRUITVALE STATION) decides to focus the attention of this film inward, rather than outward and we are rewarded with a rich, Shakespearean family drama that works because of it's simplicity.
Much of the effectiveness is due to the charismatic cast that has been drawn to this picture because of the significance of it as well as the richness of the characters they inhabit. Bozeman is regal and strong in the title role - no hint of the suffering, "I don't want this" SuperHero angst so often seen in these types of film. Academy Award winner Lupito Nyong'o joins in just as strong and independently as Nakia a "Spy" and erstwhile romantic foil for T'Challa - though Coogler is wise to avoid the "will they/won't they" cliche as well as eliminates, entirely, the "damsel in distress" subplot that would have been so tempting.
Helping these two out are a veritable "who's who" of actors of color - Angela Bassett, Forrest Whitaker, current Best Actor nominee Daniel Kaluuya and Sterling K. Brown - all turn out for fun (albeit brief) turns where each one of them gets a chance to show what they can do. Special notice should be made to Danai Gurira (TV's kick-ass Michonne in THE WALKING DEAD) as Okoye - T'Challa's chief general and bodyguard who must choose duty over honor (or does she) and, especially, Letitia Wright as T'Challa's younger, wise-cracking sister - who also happens to be the "Q" of this film. She jumped off the screen and shone brightly (but not so bright as to wash things out) in every scene she was in.
And...of course...there is Coogler favorite Michael B. Jordan (he's been in all of Coogler's major motion picture) as the villain of the piece - Erik Killmonger (the name says it all). Jordan does a nice job of bringing 3 dimensions to a character that was written a little too 2 dimension-ally, if you ask me. This character could have just been an "angry young man" cliche, but with Jordan, he becomes something much, much more.
This being a Marvel SuperHero film, the Special Effects are terrific, showing a highly secretive, highly technolized Wakanda that is hidden beneath the surface.
Is it a perfect film? Well...no. This is, in essence, a "family drama" with some hi-tech action scenes and the obligatory "two armies fighting" finale, and while the acting is good enough to hold interest throughout, I would have liked to have seen a little more action thrown in.
But...ignoring the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was a good move - as was casting such strong, believable and likeable film actors.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Uninvited in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
When I saw that Liz Jensen had written a new book, I knew I wanted to read it. I loved her book The Rapture and was hoping The Uninvited would be just as good. However, I was disappointed with this book.
Hesketh is a man who has Asperger's Syndrome. He is sent by his company to investigate cases of whistle blowers and sabotage within companies. When Hesketh goes to investigate his first case in Taiwan, he gets more than he bargained for. The supposed whistle blower seems to be talking non-sense. The next day, the whistle blower commits suicide. Soon, this is happening all over the world. Not only that, but it children all over the world are attacking adults. What's going on? Will Hesketh be able to find the answer before it's too late?
The title of The Uninvited suits the book. Like most of my reviews, I don't want to go into too much detail as to why the title fits because I don't want to give away any spoilers.
I found this particular cover to be a bit plain for my liking. The cover didn't catch my attention. (It was the synopsis that did). This cover doesn't really give too much away about what the story is going to be about. To me, the cover just looks like some spoilt child hiding in her room trying to spy on what's going on which has nothing to do with the actual story of the book!!
The world building is very believable. I could actually imagine everything written in the book happening as the author was writing about it. I had no qualms about the world building. The author brings this dystopian world to life beautifully and scarily so!
Unfortunately, the pacing was horrible in this book. I had to force myself to read it and finish it which is a shame because I really wanted to love The Uninvited. The story just went on too slowly for my liking. A lot of the time, I was contemplating giving up on this book, but I've read a lot of books that get better towards the end. However, this wasn't the case with this book. It never got any better. It was a slow read throughout.
The dialogue, to me, confused me. It featured a lot of science jargon that I didn't understand. I found myself completely lost through most of this book. The ending, especially, left me the most confused. I didn't understand why or how. I just felt it was never fully explained which left me feeling rather annoyed.
The characters just felt too one dimensional. I couldn't relate to any of them, and I didn't care what happened to them. The character of Hesketh just came across really annoying. Yes, I understand he has Asperger's but so does my son, and he's no where as annoying as Hesketh. (And I'm not just saying that because he's my son). Throughout the book, Hesketh repeats things to himself three times, and he's constantly talking about his origami. I realise that he has his little quirks, but I felt as if Hesketh's origami was being shoved down my throat. If I had to pick a favourite character, it was be Professor Whybray. He just had that lovely old man quality and came across feeling grandfatherly.
All in all, I think the idea of this story is a great one, but it was just poorly executed. The pacing was too slow, the characters were too dull, and the dialogue was just too confusing. Like I said, I really wanted to enjoy this book as Liz Jenson has written some wonderful books before this one.
I really wouldn't recommend this book, but if you'd like to give it a try, I'd say ages 16+ would be the best ages to try to enjoy it.
I'd give The Uninvited by Liz Jensen a 1.5 out of 5.
(A special thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for giving me a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest and unbiased review).
When I saw that Liz Jensen had written a new book, I knew I wanted to read it. I loved her book The Rapture and was hoping The Uninvited would be just as good. However, I was disappointed with this book.
Hesketh is a man who has Asperger's Syndrome. He is sent by his company to investigate cases of whistle blowers and sabotage within companies. When Hesketh goes to investigate his first case in Taiwan, he gets more than he bargained for. The supposed whistle blower seems to be talking non-sense. The next day, the whistle blower commits suicide. Soon, this is happening all over the world. Not only that, but it children all over the world are attacking adults. What's going on? Will Hesketh be able to find the answer before it's too late?
The title of The Uninvited suits the book. Like most of my reviews, I don't want to go into too much detail as to why the title fits because I don't want to give away any spoilers.
I found this particular cover to be a bit plain for my liking. The cover didn't catch my attention. (It was the synopsis that did). This cover doesn't really give too much away about what the story is going to be about. To me, the cover just looks like some spoilt child hiding in her room trying to spy on what's going on which has nothing to do with the actual story of the book!!
The world building is very believable. I could actually imagine everything written in the book happening as the author was writing about it. I had no qualms about the world building. The author brings this dystopian world to life beautifully and scarily so!
Unfortunately, the pacing was horrible in this book. I had to force myself to read it and finish it which is a shame because I really wanted to love The Uninvited. The story just went on too slowly for my liking. A lot of the time, I was contemplating giving up on this book, but I've read a lot of books that get better towards the end. However, this wasn't the case with this book. It never got any better. It was a slow read throughout.
The dialogue, to me, confused me. It featured a lot of science jargon that I didn't understand. I found myself completely lost through most of this book. The ending, especially, left me the most confused. I didn't understand why or how. I just felt it was never fully explained which left me feeling rather annoyed.
The characters just felt too one dimensional. I couldn't relate to any of them, and I didn't care what happened to them. The character of Hesketh just came across really annoying. Yes, I understand he has Asperger's but so does my son, and he's no where as annoying as Hesketh. (And I'm not just saying that because he's my son). Throughout the book, Hesketh repeats things to himself three times, and he's constantly talking about his origami. I realise that he has his little quirks, but I felt as if Hesketh's origami was being shoved down my throat. If I had to pick a favourite character, it was be Professor Whybray. He just had that lovely old man quality and came across feeling grandfatherly.
All in all, I think the idea of this story is a great one, but it was just poorly executed. The pacing was too slow, the characters were too dull, and the dialogue was just too confusing. Like I said, I really wanted to enjoy this book as Liz Jenson has written some wonderful books before this one.
I really wouldn't recommend this book, but if you'd like to give it a try, I'd say ages 16+ would be the best ages to try to enjoy it.
I'd give The Uninvited by Liz Jensen a 1.5 out of 5.
(A special thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for giving me a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest and unbiased review).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The latest game in the Ghost Recon series takes players on a wild adventure across Bolivia as a member of an elite CIA unit tasked with bringing down the Santa Blanca Cartel.
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands gives players a very large and diverse open world in which to operate and numerous vehicles in which to move through the massive and highly-detailed gaming maps.
Players start off by customizing their character and they can play with up to three real players or a mix of AI or humans. Missions are available via a map and contain story and side missions which grow as players progress through the game.
A typical mission may entail stopping a convoy, eliminating a target of interest, obtaining information, or disrupting operations for the Cartel.
Players can walk, fly, sail, or drive to the locales as the various provinces of the game are stocked with vehicles. There are also plenty of dangers along the way as random checkpoints, patrols, and other dangers lurk. The Cartel is not the only danger facing players as the local military or Unidad is in the pockets of the Cartel and they have an abundance of gunships, armored vehicles, and well-armed troops to bring to the fight.
The game does lead best to a more stealthy approach but at times run and gun can be effective if you are smart. I have taken at times to blowing up Propane and other explosives to create diversions while members of my team slip in and complete mission objectives.
>
Wildlands also has plenty of side content such as the conversations between the main characters and the constant presence of the Cartel DJ on the radio. While this is a great addition to the game, hearing the same lines repeated the more you play the game can get old.
The graphics and detail level of the game are solid as I really enjoyed the diverse topography of the landscape. From snow covered mountains to rugged jungles and forest, the game offers plenty to look at, and while driving or flying, it is great fun to get caught up in.
Wildlands also has a great day and night cycle as well as dynamic weather as being caught in the rain makes handling vehicles harder and can slow your approach on a target locale. The game has a very deep menu of weapons, skills, and gear that are available and unlock as players gather Skill Points along the way. I recently upgraded my spy drone to have an explosive so I could fly it into an enemy area to scout the locale, and then deliver a nice surprise when needed.
There are some issues that arise from time to time such as clipping issues where a player will merge with a wall or steps and lag can arise with the graphics even when playing on an I7 system with an NVIDIA 1060 Founders Edition card. This was not as common playing on a Playstation 4 Pro system.
The biggest fault I have with Wildlands is the amount of repetition that comes up. I have played the early access and beta versions of the game as well as the launch version and I still keep playing various missions over and over. While I am free to play on my own with AI characters, the most enjoyable way to play for me is with other players, and as such I find myself often playing missions over and over even though I select the option to continue my story. Like Tom Clancy’s The Division, Wildlands offers a very large and immersive world filled with options for players and plenty of customization. The game also offers great replay value as even when the core story mode is completed, there are numerous side missions for players to play and more content is on the way.
If you want a good challenge and a game that will offer you countless hours of solid gameplay and replay value, you will not want to miss this one.
http://sknr.net/2017/03/27/tom-clancys-ghost-recon-wildlands/
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands gives players a very large and diverse open world in which to operate and numerous vehicles in which to move through the massive and highly-detailed gaming maps.
Players start off by customizing their character and they can play with up to three real players or a mix of AI or humans. Missions are available via a map and contain story and side missions which grow as players progress through the game.
A typical mission may entail stopping a convoy, eliminating a target of interest, obtaining information, or disrupting operations for the Cartel.
Players can walk, fly, sail, or drive to the locales as the various provinces of the game are stocked with vehicles. There are also plenty of dangers along the way as random checkpoints, patrols, and other dangers lurk. The Cartel is not the only danger facing players as the local military or Unidad is in the pockets of the Cartel and they have an abundance of gunships, armored vehicles, and well-armed troops to bring to the fight.
The game does lead best to a more stealthy approach but at times run and gun can be effective if you are smart. I have taken at times to blowing up Propane and other explosives to create diversions while members of my team slip in and complete mission objectives.
>
Wildlands also has plenty of side content such as the conversations between the main characters and the constant presence of the Cartel DJ on the radio. While this is a great addition to the game, hearing the same lines repeated the more you play the game can get old.
The graphics and detail level of the game are solid as I really enjoyed the diverse topography of the landscape. From snow covered mountains to rugged jungles and forest, the game offers plenty to look at, and while driving or flying, it is great fun to get caught up in.
Wildlands also has a great day and night cycle as well as dynamic weather as being caught in the rain makes handling vehicles harder and can slow your approach on a target locale. The game has a very deep menu of weapons, skills, and gear that are available and unlock as players gather Skill Points along the way. I recently upgraded my spy drone to have an explosive so I could fly it into an enemy area to scout the locale, and then deliver a nice surprise when needed.
There are some issues that arise from time to time such as clipping issues where a player will merge with a wall or steps and lag can arise with the graphics even when playing on an I7 system with an NVIDIA 1060 Founders Edition card. This was not as common playing on a Playstation 4 Pro system.
The biggest fault I have with Wildlands is the amount of repetition that comes up. I have played the early access and beta versions of the game as well as the launch version and I still keep playing various missions over and over. While I am free to play on my own with AI characters, the most enjoyable way to play for me is with other players, and as such I find myself often playing missions over and over even though I select the option to continue my story. Like Tom Clancy’s The Division, Wildlands offers a very large and immersive world filled with options for players and plenty of customization. The game also offers great replay value as even when the core story mode is completed, there are numerous side missions for players to play and more content is on the way.
If you want a good challenge and a game that will offer you countless hours of solid gameplay and replay value, you will not want to miss this one.
http://sknr.net/2017/03/27/tom-clancys-ghost-recon-wildlands/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Bewitched (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Turning a classic television series into a feature film can be a risky proposition. While the built in audience of Baby Boomers and new fans of a show gained through reruns make remakes a potentially lucrative venture, the task of recasting classic characters and modernizing the story to today’s audiences is rife with hazards.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Dangerous Liaison.
Wow, this one starts spectacularly well! Who’s not to love some “Thomas Crown” style titles over a French language version of “Music to watch girls by”? Brilliant!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) rated The Stand in TV
Feb 10, 2021
I've never written a full review before as I let my score tell the story for the film/TV show in my view and don't like to influence people by what I write, simply put watch it and make your own judgement but with this steaming pile of crap I've had to do this just to get the anger and loathing off my chest.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 11, 2021
After the MCU rounded up with Endgame I was having Marvel fatigue, I had my issues with the Spider-man movie, and I haven't been thrilled by the TV series that we've been getting on Disney+. I had managed to avoid most of the Black Widow coverage until getting back to the cinema, but even seeing the trailer on the big screen didn't get me pumped for it.
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html