Search
Search results
I would rate this 3.5/5 stars.
I’ve never been able to find myself wanting to read Stephen King, and after a few attempts when I was younger to start one of his novels, I still couldn’t and so until this book I have never finished a Stephen King. I persevered through this one because it had been lent to me by a friend with a good review and I had watched the tv series based on it a few years ago.
The start of this novel was very slow and confused me in a few points (but I think that was intentional as our main character – Jake Epping – was also pretty confused at the same time). But because not much was happening, I kept putting the book down, distracted to do something else and really having to force myself to pick it back up. Once I managed to get to part 2, I found that I was much more interested in the story and the plot line and it wasn’t such a chore to make the time to read it. I then had a difficult time to put the book down, and most nights I was only putting it down because I was falling asleep in the middle of a sentence! I read the last quarter of the book in a day, because I just wanted to know what was going to happen and whether he was going to be able to stop the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Overall, I found the concept very interesting and not just the time travel. I found the concept of the past not wanting to be changed and actively trying to stop someone from changing it interesting, and sometimes it was quite comical the amount of things that went wrong when Jake was trying to change the past. I did, however, find the ending very disappointing. It felt like it was starting to be set up for a different ending and then at the last minute the author decided to change it completely. It just didn’t seem to fit with the set up of the last chapter or so, but I can see why it was done and that the ending that was being set up wouldn’t work in terms of not changing the past.
A very interesting read, but with a disappointing ending, but I would still recommend it!
I’ve never been able to find myself wanting to read Stephen King, and after a few attempts when I was younger to start one of his novels, I still couldn’t and so until this book I have never finished a Stephen King. I persevered through this one because it had been lent to me by a friend with a good review and I had watched the tv series based on it a few years ago.
The start of this novel was very slow and confused me in a few points (but I think that was intentional as our main character – Jake Epping – was also pretty confused at the same time). But because not much was happening, I kept putting the book down, distracted to do something else and really having to force myself to pick it back up. Once I managed to get to part 2, I found that I was much more interested in the story and the plot line and it wasn’t such a chore to make the time to read it. I then had a difficult time to put the book down, and most nights I was only putting it down because I was falling asleep in the middle of a sentence! I read the last quarter of the book in a day, because I just wanted to know what was going to happen and whether he was going to be able to stop the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Overall, I found the concept very interesting and not just the time travel. I found the concept of the past not wanting to be changed and actively trying to stop someone from changing it interesting, and sometimes it was quite comical the amount of things that went wrong when Jake was trying to change the past. I did, however, find the ending very disappointing. It felt like it was starting to be set up for a different ending and then at the last minute the author decided to change it completely. It just didn’t seem to fit with the set up of the last chapter or so, but I can see why it was done and that the ending that was being set up wouldn’t work in terms of not changing the past.
A very interesting read, but with a disappointing ending, but I would still recommend it!
Hairpin Bridge
8.0
Rate It
Book
Looking for a thriller that you can’t put down? Then try this book that everyone’s talking...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Table 19 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Mean spirited and atrocious.
I really hated this film. There. BOOM. Got it off my chest.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
Kaylin (39 KP) rated Don't Breathe (2016) in Movies
Feb 17, 2019 (Updated Feb 17, 2019)
Stephen Lang is excellent as the old man (2 more)
Pretty decent acting throughout
Has a genuinely tense atmosphere
When's it's good, it's good...
Don't Breathe is an interesting case of a horror movie. It's a home invasion movie, but our main character is not the home owner, it's the people who have broken into the house.
Our main character's, Rocky, Alex, and Money, have made a living breaking into houses. They are able to accomplish this due to Alex's father having the codes to all the alarm systems. Rocky is trying to get her sister out of their abusive home and Money promises her a big payout from this blind old man's house. Rocky agrees to one last job but things do not go as planned.
Don't Breathe has a pretty solid premise and delivers on a lot of it's scares. My main problem would be the twist which I'm not going to spoil for you here, but I'll say it's pretty unbelievable and took a lot of enjoyment out of the movie for me. All and All I'd say give it a view.
Our main character's, Rocky, Alex, and Money, have made a living breaking into houses. They are able to accomplish this due to Alex's father having the codes to all the alarm systems. Rocky is trying to get her sister out of their abusive home and Money promises her a big payout from this blind old man's house. Rocky agrees to one last job but things do not go as planned.
Don't Breathe has a pretty solid premise and delivers on a lot of it's scares. My main problem would be the twist which I'm not going to spoil for you here, but I'll say it's pretty unbelievable and took a lot of enjoyment out of the movie for me. All and All I'd say give it a view.
BobbiesDustyPages (1259 KP) rated The Gunslinger in Books
Apr 21, 2019
I first read The Gunslinger when I was in high school and at the height of my Stephen King obsession. Going in and didn't really know what to expect from the story since I didn't really look too much into the series when I first picked it up which I'm pretty glad I didn't because I have never been much of a western fan so I'm not sure if I really would have have this a fair shot.
The Gunslinger honestly can be on the slow side even for such a short book but King does an amazing job of really showing you the world ge is building while still leaving a lot open for the series to build around. After reading this for the first and second time in still not sure how I feel about Rowland aka The Gunslinger I do grow to really love the character in the next book but as an introduction my feelings are never really solid. The character that really peaks my interest is The Man In Black through out the book I just can't wait to find out more about him and why Rowland is chasing him.
The Gunslinger honestly can be on the slow side even for such a short book but King does an amazing job of really showing you the world ge is building while still leaving a lot open for the series to build around. After reading this for the first and second time in still not sure how I feel about Rowland aka The Gunslinger I do grow to really love the character in the next book but as an introduction my feelings are never really solid. The character that really peaks my interest is The Man In Black through out the book I just can't wait to find out more about him and why Rowland is chasing him.
David (771 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Jan 17, 2018
Very different from other X-men films
I sat at home to watch this not knowing much about it except the synopsis on screen. Watched the colour version rather than the film noir version. As my title says it's not like other X-men films with it's bloody violence and bad language as the previous films were aimed at a younger audience (in my opinion). The film was fast paced and gave us a little back story on how Prof X and Wolverine got to where they are now. As I am used to him in humorous roles, Stephen Merchants character was a surprise showing that he can step out of his comfort zone. The actress that played Lauren was fantastic even though she didn't speak for the first half of the film. She would be a great evil spirit in a ghost/horror movie as she has a very good deadpan glare that looks straight through you (chilling). I am not going to do spoilers, I will say that I would watch the film again maybe even the film noir version.
Rachel Maria Berney (114 KP) rated Norse Mythology in Books
Dec 4, 2018
A little informative and interesting
Contains spoilers, click to show
I love Neil Gaiman. I was so excited to read this book as I really enjoyed American Gods and jabe a love of Viking history. Right before reading this I read Stephen Fry's Mythology, unlucky for Neil and me. I can't help but compare the two and Gaiman's Norse Mythology comes up short. Whilst we do have access to more information of Greek myth than Norse myth, I don't think that's the entire reason that Norse Mythology is a hard read. The telling of the Norse stories doesn't have the flow I have come to expect from Gaiman, there is a strangled growth to it that makes for a choppy reading that is just hard work and not that enjoyable. Gaiman's style and what I enjoy about him is too constrained in this retelling of Norse myths, this may be due to a lack of evidence of Norse myth and history. I think it would have worked well online, as blog posts etc. As a book it is something easily put down, forgotten about and never finished.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Desperation in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Rather creepy
Stephen King is known for his scary and horror filled stories, but it isnt often that I find them to be like this. Desperation however is the first story I've actually found to be rather unsettling and really quite creepy.
This is one of King's good multiple character driven books, told from the point of view of each of the well developed yet flawed characters. You can say what you like about King, but he knows how to write to keep you reading. The plot is bonkers but full of unsettling creepiness and gore that you can't help but imagine. It may be slightly too long and drawn out in parts, and I'm not a big fan of the religious aspects. However it's still a very enjoyable tale. I had worried I wouldn't like this as much having already read The Regulators, but both books have their own merits and whilst related, still stand distinctly separate. The character names might be the same, but fortunately as the personalities and appearances were changed so drastically in The Regulators, it makes it much easier for Desperation to stand apart as the original story.
This is one of King's good multiple character driven books, told from the point of view of each of the well developed yet flawed characters. You can say what you like about King, but he knows how to write to keep you reading. The plot is bonkers but full of unsettling creepiness and gore that you can't help but imagine. It may be slightly too long and drawn out in parts, and I'm not a big fan of the religious aspects. However it's still a very enjoyable tale. I had worried I wouldn't like this as much having already read The Regulators, but both books have their own merits and whilst related, still stand distinctly separate. The character names might be the same, but fortunately as the personalities and appearances were changed so drastically in The Regulators, it makes it much easier for Desperation to stand apart as the original story.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Dawn of the Dead (1978) in Movies
Jul 18, 2019
Zombies Run The Mall
Contains spoilers, click to show
Dawn of the Dead- is the second movie in the living dead franchise directed by horror icon George A. Ramero.
The plot: As hordes of zombies swarm over the U.S., the terrified populace tries everything in their power to escape the attack of the undead, but neither cities nor the countryside prove safe. In Pennsylvania, radio-station employee Stephen (David Emge) and his girlfriend, Francine (Gaylen Ross), escape in the station helicopter, accompanied by two renegade SWAT members, Roger and Pete. The group retreats to the haven of an enclosed shopping center to make what could be humanity's last stand.
On the way these surviors to encourter a bike gang that raids the mall and some how the survivor have to survivor the bike gang without getting killed.
You really get to care about these charaters, because you are with them, you are one of them, you fell like your apart of them and trying to survivor the zombies.
This movie is 2h and 30mins long but that is the perfect amont of time, for this zombie epic.
A must see horror movie, a must see zombie survival movie and george a ramero director it.
The plot: As hordes of zombies swarm over the U.S., the terrified populace tries everything in their power to escape the attack of the undead, but neither cities nor the countryside prove safe. In Pennsylvania, radio-station employee Stephen (David Emge) and his girlfriend, Francine (Gaylen Ross), escape in the station helicopter, accompanied by two renegade SWAT members, Roger and Pete. The group retreats to the haven of an enclosed shopping center to make what could be humanity's last stand.
On the way these surviors to encourter a bike gang that raids the mall and some how the survivor have to survivor the bike gang without getting killed.
You really get to care about these charaters, because you are with them, you are one of them, you fell like your apart of them and trying to survivor the zombies.
This movie is 2h and 30mins long but that is the perfect amont of time, for this zombie epic.
A must see horror movie, a must see zombie survival movie and george a ramero director it.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Dreamcatcher (2003) in Movies
Nov 9, 2019
A little bonkers
I’ve read the book, and I still found this film to be bonkers and completely crazy. So I really don’t know how anyone who hasn’t read the book can watch this film and have a clue what’s going on.
To be fair, even for Stephen King this story is a bit far fetched and a slightly confusing mix of genres. The film follows the basic plot from the book although obviously missing a lot of the more detailed aspects. It has a good and very decent cast, although sadly some like Timothy Olyphant and Jason Lee. And I’m really not entirely sure how I feel about Morgan Freeman being the bad guy, he definitely feels a little miscast. The effects in this are rather poor too, even when considering it was made in 2003!
Overall it’s not a bad film and watchable if you’ve read the book, but the crazy plot isn’t made any less sane and I really don’t think the boys friendship is highlighted as much as it should be like it has in some of King’s other films (IT and Stand By Me for example).
To be fair, even for Stephen King this story is a bit far fetched and a slightly confusing mix of genres. The film follows the basic plot from the book although obviously missing a lot of the more detailed aspects. It has a good and very decent cast, although sadly some like Timothy Olyphant and Jason Lee. And I’m really not entirely sure how I feel about Morgan Freeman being the bad guy, he definitely feels a little miscast. The effects in this are rather poor too, even when considering it was made in 2003!
Overall it’s not a bad film and watchable if you’ve read the book, but the crazy plot isn’t made any less sane and I really don’t think the boys friendship is highlighted as much as it should be like it has in some of King’s other films (IT and Stand By Me for example).