Search
Search results
May I Quote You on That?: A Guide to Grammar and Usage
Book
We all use language in different ways, depending on the situations we find ourselves in. In formal...
Photo Translator!
Lifestyle and Utilities
App
Photo Translate is here and it is here to own us all. Translate your images into almost any language...
TE
The E-Connected World: Risks and Opportunities
Book
Contrary to writings that herald the internet as a great liberator or see the information age as a...
Synchronicity
Book
Synchronicity is the uncanny and fortuitous timing of events which seem to go beyond pure chance....
Russ Troutt (291 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
This is Russ. I went and saw the new M. Night Shyamalan movie Split today, and let me tell you...Hey, this is Stephen. I'm in the light now. So, we saw Split today. It's the best movie of 2017 I've seen. It's also the only movie of 2017 I've seen so far. Sit down Stephen! This is Arnie, and yeah, Split was amazing! It was as thrilling as climbing a water tower. Damn it Arnie, sit back down! Don't make me release the beast! Sorry about that, this is Russ again, back in the light. Split is one of M. Night Shyamalan's best movies to date. There have been movies about people with split personalites in the past, but this is definitely one of the most original takes on the subject matter. This is happening, you don't need a sixth sense to see it, just follow the signs, leave your village, and take a visit to your local theater and see this movie. James McAvoy gives a great performance, or performances I should say, and the 'survivor girl' Anya Taylor-Joy is unbreakable. A solid thriller that deserves to be in the light right now. Oh, and make sure you don't leave the theater before the credits roll, because the last scene ties the movie into another of Shyamalan's. I won't say which, but I was grinning ear to ear with the tie-in.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated In the Tall Grass (2019) in Movies
Oct 5, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Becky and her brother Cal hear a cry for help coming from a field of tall grass they go in to help. It soon becomes apparent that things are not what they seem in the tall grass.
In The Tall Grass is a Netflix film based on a novella written by Stephen King & Joe Hill. The film is a horror/suspense/thriller with a main cast only six people and only seven actors credited. The six main characters all become trapped in the grass and, like any good thriller it soon becomes apparent that at least one of them cannot be trusted as they get picked off one by one. However, Stephen King had a hand it writing this so you know it’s not going to be a normal film, there are no monsters in this, no killer Clowns and, surprisingly, no scarecrows although I guess that would have been too obvious for anything written by Mr King. There is a dog. The strangeness comes from the way the film plays with time, it soon becomes apparent that something is playing with time and space which leads to some interesting time loops.
In the Tall Grass is an interesting film which does a lot with a very small cast and a field and isn’t a mega long film like some of the other King films. If you can get your head around time loops, then I think it’s well worth a watch.
In The Tall Grass is a Netflix film based on a novella written by Stephen King & Joe Hill. The film is a horror/suspense/thriller with a main cast only six people and only seven actors credited. The six main characters all become trapped in the grass and, like any good thriller it soon becomes apparent that at least one of them cannot be trusted as they get picked off one by one. However, Stephen King had a hand it writing this so you know it’s not going to be a normal film, there are no monsters in this, no killer Clowns and, surprisingly, no scarecrows although I guess that would have been too obvious for anything written by Mr King. There is a dog. The strangeness comes from the way the film plays with time, it soon becomes apparent that something is playing with time and space which leads to some interesting time loops.
In the Tall Grass is an interesting film which does a lot with a very small cast and a field and isn’t a mega long film like some of the other King films. If you can get your head around time loops, then I think it’s well worth a watch.
Where Love Grows
10.0
Rate It
Book
When two broken men look to each other for help, an unexpected romance blooms. Stephen’s home,...
Contemporary MM Romance
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Brothers Bloom (2009) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
Stephen and Bloom are brothers who seem to bounce from foster home to foster home for whatever reason imaginable. That is until the day Stephen sets in motion his first con. After the con is executed exactly as planned, the brothers get their first taste of success only to quickly have it taken away from them. The wheels were already turning though as destiny had knocked on their door. Now, twenty five years later, The Brothers Bloom are arguably the two best con men in the world. While Stephen seems to enjoy pushing himself to create the perfect con, Bloom wants more out of life. He's sick of being a character his brother wrote and wants an unwritten life. They decide to do one last job involving a beautifully charming heiress, Penelope, that takes it upon herself to collect hobbies. Stephen plans on everything except for Bloom falling in love with her. So now, a con that was planned to take them around the world has turned into a romantic adventure that has an ending even Stephen couldn't see coming.
Rian Johnson created a great modern day noir film (which was also his debut as a director) with Brick that was really enjoyable. When the word about The Brothers Bloom started making its rounds, it immediately reeled me in. Johnson's style in The Brothers Bloom seems to almost mimic Wes Anderson's at times as several scenes (especially the first ten minutes or so) have a similar feel that seem to be shot in the same way you'd see in an Anderson film. The film also has a Kiss Kiss Bang Bang feel to it with how colorful every shot is. The tone was similar in both films as they both had humor as an underlying tone amongst a dramatic adventure revolving around crime. This film is just a real pleasure to look at. The cinematography seems to tell a story all on its own as every shot seems to be done in a unique way and everything is so vividly colorful.
Every factor of the film is strong. The story isn't entirely original as we've all heard con men stories before, but the way the story unfolds and the development of the characters involved makes it a new experience. The dialogue is also top notch. Nothing stuck out as being cheesy or hokey. Every line spoken was either witty, charming, or something you'd expect to hear in everyday conversation. So it was realistic and natural. The entire cast has to be the film's strongest point though. There doesn't really seem to be a character that's wasted or isn't used to their full potential. Rachel Weisz does steal the show though. Her character is so charismatic, outgoing, and eccentric that she just steals every scene she's a part of.
The Brothers Bloom is one of the best films to be released this year, which is a shame since it seems to have a limited release. It offers something for everybody looking for a good time at the movies whether it's an adventure that will take them around the world, romance between two of the central characters, an oddball character that's great comedic relief, the development of both brothers as characters as their crime of swindling people as con men causes drama, and even plenty of explosions to satisfy the action junkie. The conclusion of the film is both heartwarming and heartbreaking, as well. The Brothers Bloom will probably be overlooked by the many assured blockbusters coming out this summer, but it comes highly recommended from me and should be on everyone's must see list.
Rian Johnson created a great modern day noir film (which was also his debut as a director) with Brick that was really enjoyable. When the word about The Brothers Bloom started making its rounds, it immediately reeled me in. Johnson's style in The Brothers Bloom seems to almost mimic Wes Anderson's at times as several scenes (especially the first ten minutes or so) have a similar feel that seem to be shot in the same way you'd see in an Anderson film. The film also has a Kiss Kiss Bang Bang feel to it with how colorful every shot is. The tone was similar in both films as they both had humor as an underlying tone amongst a dramatic adventure revolving around crime. This film is just a real pleasure to look at. The cinematography seems to tell a story all on its own as every shot seems to be done in a unique way and everything is so vividly colorful.
Every factor of the film is strong. The story isn't entirely original as we've all heard con men stories before, but the way the story unfolds and the development of the characters involved makes it a new experience. The dialogue is also top notch. Nothing stuck out as being cheesy or hokey. Every line spoken was either witty, charming, or something you'd expect to hear in everyday conversation. So it was realistic and natural. The entire cast has to be the film's strongest point though. There doesn't really seem to be a character that's wasted or isn't used to their full potential. Rachel Weisz does steal the show though. Her character is so charismatic, outgoing, and eccentric that she just steals every scene she's a part of.
The Brothers Bloom is one of the best films to be released this year, which is a shame since it seems to have a limited release. It offers something for everybody looking for a good time at the movies whether it's an adventure that will take them around the world, romance between two of the central characters, an oddball character that's great comedic relief, the development of both brothers as characters as their crime of swindling people as con men causes drama, and even plenty of explosions to satisfy the action junkie. The conclusion of the film is both heartwarming and heartbreaking, as well. The Brothers Bloom will probably be overlooked by the many assured blockbusters coming out this summer, but it comes highly recommended from me and should be on everyone's must see list.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Sara (80 KP) rated LittleBigPlanet in Video Games
Aug 27, 2017
Sandbox creation (2 more)
Interesting world
Stephen Frye Narration
A charming game fun for the whole family.
This game is adorable. Playable solo or with friends this game is a great way to spend some time. You can play the story, investigate levels designed by other players or create your own. The story mode has tons of goodies to collect to enhance the creation part of the game, which is where most of the game truly is.
Playable with 1-4 people either online or in person.
My one issue is the rubberbanding. It makes certain levels difficult to ace if one player accidentally shoots forward murdering the other player because they are too far apart.
Playable with 1-4 people either online or in person.
My one issue is the rubberbanding. It makes certain levels difficult to ace if one player accidentally shoots forward murdering the other player because they are too far apart.