Search
Search results
Chrissie-ann (78 KP) rated The Outsider in Books
Jul 29, 2018
Great read
I usually struggle with reading Stephen king, maybe because they're always very paranormal. But I loved this, kind of a cross with a detective book with a paranormal twist. Which was perfect for me. I couldn't put it down, but limited myself each day so I could appreciate what I was reading a bit more.
Definitely worth a read.
Definitely worth a read.
Shaun Collins (3 KP) rated Lethbridge-Stewart: Times Squared (#8) in Books
Jan 12, 2018
Another enthralling entry into the Lethbridge-Stewart line, once the action starts it doesn't let up. Cross exhibits a nice handle on writing action scenes and at times channels Stephen King with creepy images of rats surging up from flooded New York subway lines. The plot is a little standard for what we've come to expect from the Great Intelligence, but it's still handled well. Our band of heroes all have moments of awesome, and it's an all-around solid book. Full (spoiler filled) reviews available at www.travelingthevortex.com
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated NOS4A2 in Books
Apr 26, 2020
Just Because Review
While I imagine a few already know this it is important to note that Joe Hill is Stephen King's son, which is actually what made me interested in his work. This book reflects the works of Stephen King so much that I almost thought he was the actual author. It is very clear that this book resides in the same universe as Stephen King's works. It mentions things like the Pennywise Circus and True Knot (Doctor Sleep). It also reminded me of Christine and multiple people in the book have "a touch of the shinning" and if readers pay attention they may notice elements from Dreamcatcher and Finders Keepers as well.
As a child, Vic discovers a bike that gives her the ability to cross the Shorter Way Bridge to locate lost things, so long as they are in a fixed position. The bad thing about this is that using the ability has its cost and the price she must pay is the risk of losing part of her mind each time she goes across. One day after fighting with her mother she takes off across the bridge looking for trouble and finds just that in Charles Manx. Luckily she manages to escape but Charles Manx will forever hold a grudge against her and she will see him again after she is an adult and has convinced herself that the Shorter Way Bridge was just a fantasy from a delusional mind.
I highly recommend this book. The only reason why it did not get a 5 out of 5 was that while the story was original the world felt to firmly set in the Stephen King universe and I am not sure if that was intentional or if it was just a by-product of the household that Joe Hill grew up in.
For more reviews check out Night Reader on Smashbomb.com or Night Reader Reviews on Facebook
As a child, Vic discovers a bike that gives her the ability to cross the Shorter Way Bridge to locate lost things, so long as they are in a fixed position. The bad thing about this is that using the ability has its cost and the price she must pay is the risk of losing part of her mind each time she goes across. One day after fighting with her mother she takes off across the bridge looking for trouble and finds just that in Charles Manx. Luckily she manages to escape but Charles Manx will forever hold a grudge against her and she will see him again after she is an adult and has convinced herself that the Shorter Way Bridge was just a fantasy from a delusional mind.
I highly recommend this book. The only reason why it did not get a 5 out of 5 was that while the story was original the world felt to firmly set in the Stephen King universe and I am not sure if that was intentional or if it was just a by-product of the household that Joe Hill grew up in.
For more reviews check out Night Reader on Smashbomb.com or Night Reader Reviews on Facebook
Darren (1599 KP) rated 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown (2015) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown starts as Burke (Cross) and his fellow officers learning of an incriminating set of photos of his men’s corruption. We move on to meet Burke’s former partner John Shaw (Ambrose) who is returning to work after being shot in the line of duty. It isn’t too long before we see the clash between Burke and Shaw which leads to Shaw investigating the bust.
When Shaw uncovers the truth he finds himself being hunted in the precinct by Burke and his men Gideon (Cudmore), Darrow (Munro) Harris (Olsson), Meeks (Levins) and Saul (Morrow). Shaw finds himself locked in the station with only the rookie Jenny Taylor (Smyth) not hunting him down like Burke’s men.
12 Rounds 3: Lockdown is an action film that does everything you need it to without making anything over complicated. We have the one man taking on the villains in a building with no escape to expose the truth. What more do you need in an action film. Saying that we have one final twist that comes off very cheap and forced. This is something that is easy to watch which will work for casual viewing.
Actor Review
Dean Ambrose: John Shaw is the honest cop that has just returned to work after being injured in the line of duty. He uncovers that his former partner has been Burke and his men have become corrupt. He has to survive a lockdown being hunted down by all of the men and being framed for everything to get the truth out. Dean is very good in this role with a potentially new action star.
Roger Cross: Tyler Burke is the former partner of Shaw but they have gone their separate ways with Burke entering into the world of corruption but when he is about to get busted he will kill anyone that gets in his way including Shaw who is the only man stopping his team from being exposed. Roger makes for a good leading villain role.
Daniel Cudmore: Gideon is one of the men working with Burke, he is the psychical presence that Shaw must overcome in the traditional big guy little guy fight in an action movie. Daniel is good for what he needs to be in this film without standing out any more than the rest of the bad guys.
Lochlyn Munro: Darrow is the tech guy on Burke’s team he does everything to make sure that Shaw can’t communicate or escape with the outside world. Lochlyn does well in this role which again is just like the rest of the bad guys.
Support Cast: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has a very simple used of supporting cast with most of them being the people trying to kill Shaw with the rest outside working out what to do.
Director Review: Stephen Reynolds – Stephen gives us an action film that is an easy watch as well as being non-stop.
Action: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has plenty of action going on from start to finish with the nothing being too over the top but never seems to stop.
Crime: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has all the criminals being police which is a nice take on the crime side of the story.
Thriller: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown doesn’t stop which is always a good thing in an action film.
Settings: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown keeps nearly all of the film inside the police station which helps keep the action in a small space.
Special Effects: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown uses the special effects well without having to use them too often.
Suggestion: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown is one for the action fans out there to enjoy, it is an easy watch. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Ambrose is great with no previous experience.
Worst Part: Final Twist.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Maybe
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Trivia: Due to being in WWE where they perform in front of a live audience on live television, Dean Ambrose was used to reading his lines in one try and got aggravated when other actors forgot their lines.
Overall: Enjoyable action film that is easy to watch.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/04/12-rounds-3-lockdown-2015/
When Shaw uncovers the truth he finds himself being hunted in the precinct by Burke and his men Gideon (Cudmore), Darrow (Munro) Harris (Olsson), Meeks (Levins) and Saul (Morrow). Shaw finds himself locked in the station with only the rookie Jenny Taylor (Smyth) not hunting him down like Burke’s men.
12 Rounds 3: Lockdown is an action film that does everything you need it to without making anything over complicated. We have the one man taking on the villains in a building with no escape to expose the truth. What more do you need in an action film. Saying that we have one final twist that comes off very cheap and forced. This is something that is easy to watch which will work for casual viewing.
Actor Review
Dean Ambrose: John Shaw is the honest cop that has just returned to work after being injured in the line of duty. He uncovers that his former partner has been Burke and his men have become corrupt. He has to survive a lockdown being hunted down by all of the men and being framed for everything to get the truth out. Dean is very good in this role with a potentially new action star.
Roger Cross: Tyler Burke is the former partner of Shaw but they have gone their separate ways with Burke entering into the world of corruption but when he is about to get busted he will kill anyone that gets in his way including Shaw who is the only man stopping his team from being exposed. Roger makes for a good leading villain role.
Daniel Cudmore: Gideon is one of the men working with Burke, he is the psychical presence that Shaw must overcome in the traditional big guy little guy fight in an action movie. Daniel is good for what he needs to be in this film without standing out any more than the rest of the bad guys.
Lochlyn Munro: Darrow is the tech guy on Burke’s team he does everything to make sure that Shaw can’t communicate or escape with the outside world. Lochlyn does well in this role which again is just like the rest of the bad guys.
Support Cast: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has a very simple used of supporting cast with most of them being the people trying to kill Shaw with the rest outside working out what to do.
Director Review: Stephen Reynolds – Stephen gives us an action film that is an easy watch as well as being non-stop.
Action: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has plenty of action going on from start to finish with the nothing being too over the top but never seems to stop.
Crime: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has all the criminals being police which is a nice take on the crime side of the story.
Thriller: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown doesn’t stop which is always a good thing in an action film.
Settings: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown keeps nearly all of the film inside the police station which helps keep the action in a small space.
Special Effects: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown uses the special effects well without having to use them too often.
Suggestion: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown is one for the action fans out there to enjoy, it is an easy watch. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Ambrose is great with no previous experience.
Worst Part: Final Twist.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Maybe
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Trivia: Due to being in WWE where they perform in front of a live audience on live television, Dean Ambrose was used to reading his lines in one try and got aggravated when other actors forgot their lines.
Overall: Enjoyable action film that is easy to watch.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/04/12-rounds-3-lockdown-2015/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gray Man (2022) in Movies
Aug 6, 2022
Entertaining Enough...but...NOTHING NEW
Have you seen the touring company of Hamilton when it came to your town? You liked it, didn’t you? I sure did, but I didn’t like it as much as I liked the Broadway Company of Hamilton that I saw in NYC the year before.
Such is the case with the new Ryan Gosling/Chris Evans action flick THE GRAY MAN. It is reminiscent of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films - and is very enjoyable - but I like the other movies better.
Directed by THE RUSSO BROTHERS (AVENGERS: ENDGAME) and written by Joe Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (writers of AVENGERS: ENDGAME), based on the book by Mark Greaney, THE GRAY MAN stars Gosling (LA LA LAND) as an enigmatic secret agent (is their any other kind) who is sent on a deadly mission that, perhaps isn’t what it seems on the surface (are there any other)?
This is a plot VERY reminiscent of the aforementioned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films and when Chris Evans (CAPTAIN AMERICA, of course) and Ana de Armas (the latest James Bond flick, NO TIME TO DIE) show up as a few other mercenaries who might be on Gosling’s side - or might not - you can’t help but be reminded of those other flicks.
And that’s the trouble with THE GRAY MAN, it just can’t compete (at least in my memory) with those other films, mostly because it doesn’t do anything new. It is your basic “Super Spy” flick, very professionally done, but it isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.
The actors (Gosling, de Armas and Evans) are very good in their roles and have enigmatic (Gosling), out of control (Evans) and mysterious (de Armas) down very well and are ably assisted by wily veterans like Alfre Woodard (CROSS CREEK) and good ol’ Billy Bob Thornton (SLINGBLADE) who seem to having a good time going along for the ride.
And…it’s a fun ride…the action scenes are well done, set-up and choreographed professionally with just enough unique ways to take out a henchman or blow-up some sort of transport to make it interesting to watch, but…again…it’s really nothing new.
An entertaining 2 hours of film-making - and a film that will have a sequel on the way - there are worst ways to spend your time and with good (enough) action sequences and interesting and charismatic performers to watch - THE GRAY MAN suits its purpose…it entertains.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the new Ryan Gosling/Chris Evans action flick THE GRAY MAN. It is reminiscent of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films - and is very enjoyable - but I like the other movies better.
Directed by THE RUSSO BROTHERS (AVENGERS: ENDGAME) and written by Joe Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (writers of AVENGERS: ENDGAME), based on the book by Mark Greaney, THE GRAY MAN stars Gosling (LA LA LAND) as an enigmatic secret agent (is their any other kind) who is sent on a deadly mission that, perhaps isn’t what it seems on the surface (are there any other)?
This is a plot VERY reminiscent of the aforementioned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films and when Chris Evans (CAPTAIN AMERICA, of course) and Ana de Armas (the latest James Bond flick, NO TIME TO DIE) show up as a few other mercenaries who might be on Gosling’s side - or might not - you can’t help but be reminded of those other flicks.
And that’s the trouble with THE GRAY MAN, it just can’t compete (at least in my memory) with those other films, mostly because it doesn’t do anything new. It is your basic “Super Spy” flick, very professionally done, but it isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.
The actors (Gosling, de Armas and Evans) are very good in their roles and have enigmatic (Gosling), out of control (Evans) and mysterious (de Armas) down very well and are ably assisted by wily veterans like Alfre Woodard (CROSS CREEK) and good ol’ Billy Bob Thornton (SLINGBLADE) who seem to having a good time going along for the ride.
And…it’s a fun ride…the action scenes are well done, set-up and choreographed professionally with just enough unique ways to take out a henchman or blow-up some sort of transport to make it interesting to watch, but…again…it’s really nothing new.
An entertaining 2 hours of film-making - and a film that will have a sequel on the way - there are worst ways to spend your time and with good (enough) action sequences and interesting and charismatic performers to watch - THE GRAY MAN suits its purpose…it entertains.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
TheBookMother (105 KP) rated Christine in Books
May 26, 2019
Think classic slasher come Top Gear.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Like alot of my recent reads I picked up a very well loved copy from a supermarket fundraising bookcase.
Now, I do feel quite conflicted in critiquing the master that is Stephen King especially as it's not all positive. It's probably the same feeling if you kicked your Nan or when you've hidden your son's favourite toy that drives you crazy and watch him scour the house for it for days on end.
It started off in true King fashion. I've read a few of his repertoire including the classics. I have come to recognise his tone and the way he sets the scene.
We begin by meeting Dennis who is recalling past events which include his friend Arnie and his obsession with his new car Christine. We soon find out Christine is a bit more than your average first car and anyone who seems to cross Arnie will feel her very gory and murderous wrath. We learn that her previous owner LeBay begins to possess Arnie. Dennis sets out to try and save his friend from the evil clutch(es) (I had to sorry!) of Christine and stop her once and for all.
Tense, descriptive with an air of paranormal/ supernatural you generally know what you're getting with King and you know there will tend to be a twist or scare along the way.
However, I did find this abit of a slow burner and not what expected it to be.
I think it could be because this is 20+ years old and I am probably desensitised by slashers it did feel quite cliché in places.
I did at times feel slightly confused as we were introduced to Christine the possessed car but then we learn it's all to do with Lebay taking over and even ageing Arnie. It did remind me abit of Ghost Rider.
I enjoyed the music lyrics at the beginning of each chapter and throughout as it really did help set scene and help with showing the difference between Arnie and Lebay's ages.
I have to admit I was distracted alot and do put it down frequently but I did pick up and finish it eventually.
I normally finish a book in 2-3 days (children, work and life permitting!) But this took a while longer. Perhaps, as I felt it was a tad stagnant in places.
It was never the less an okay read, it's a good slasher come supernatural story but one I did think I would have enjoyed alot more.
Now, I do feel quite conflicted in critiquing the master that is Stephen King especially as it's not all positive. It's probably the same feeling if you kicked your Nan or when you've hidden your son's favourite toy that drives you crazy and watch him scour the house for it for days on end.
It started off in true King fashion. I've read a few of his repertoire including the classics. I have come to recognise his tone and the way he sets the scene.
We begin by meeting Dennis who is recalling past events which include his friend Arnie and his obsession with his new car Christine. We soon find out Christine is a bit more than your average first car and anyone who seems to cross Arnie will feel her very gory and murderous wrath. We learn that her previous owner LeBay begins to possess Arnie. Dennis sets out to try and save his friend from the evil clutch(es) (I had to sorry!) of Christine and stop her once and for all.
Tense, descriptive with an air of paranormal/ supernatural you generally know what you're getting with King and you know there will tend to be a twist or scare along the way.
However, I did find this abit of a slow burner and not what expected it to be.
I think it could be because this is 20+ years old and I am probably desensitised by slashers it did feel quite cliché in places.
I did at times feel slightly confused as we were introduced to Christine the possessed car but then we learn it's all to do with Lebay taking over and even ageing Arnie. It did remind me abit of Ghost Rider.
I enjoyed the music lyrics at the beginning of each chapter and throughout as it really did help set scene and help with showing the difference between Arnie and Lebay's ages.
I have to admit I was distracted alot and do put it down frequently but I did pick up and finish it eventually.
I normally finish a book in 2-3 days (children, work and life permitting!) But this took a while longer. Perhaps, as I felt it was a tad stagnant in places.
It was never the less an okay read, it's a good slasher come supernatural story but one I did think I would have enjoyed alot more.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Conan the Barbarian (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Conan.
The name either evokes pictures of half naked body builders, and topless wenches, or a very tall man with red, quaffed hair. Well, hopefully the former is what you are all thinking about, because that is what you are going to get. Nobody goes to a Conan movie for the tall, red haired guy. Right?
Jason Momoa, who is not awful to look at for a couple of hours, plays Conan. Physically, he is much truer to the character in the original source material, than the former governor of California. He also has this interesting gravity that makes you sit up and pay attention. Or maybe that was because he was shirtless for most of the movie.
Conan’s story begins as a baby, who is “battle born” and whose first taste, a familiar narrator states, “is not his mother’s milk, but her blood.” He is better then many of his village’s best warrior candidates and joins in a test that ends up being a battle against savages. While the other candidates run back to camp; Conan stay and fights. Not only does he return to the camp having passed the test, but he carries three of the savage’s heads with him. His father (Ron Pearlman) decides it is time to forge a sword and begin to train, with the father imparting sage words like, “You cannot yield the sword until you understand it.”
Conan’s training is interrupted by the arrival of Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang), a ruthless warlord who brings death and destruction to Conan’s village. Zym’s on a a quest to to claim the final piece of a mask that will give him control of the magic of Asheron. Conan is left the sole survivor of his Cimmarian people, growing up to become a fierce warrior intent on avenging his father’s death. All the while, Zym and his daughter Marique continue on Zym’s quest to become a powerful god, in search of a “pureblood” – the one person whose blood will make the mask work. Inevitably, Zym and Conan’s paths cross again and swordfights ensue.
The best thing about this movie, for me, were the female leads. Rose McGowan as Marique and Rachel Nichols as Tamara (the pureblood) are both warriors. It was also excellent to have Conan acknowledge this in Tamara; even saying, “Cimmarian women are warriors, give her the leather and armor.” We would have never heard 1982’s Conan say anything like this.
Listening to people while leaving the movie I heard grumblings about how the Conan character never really had an origin story. This movie provides that, and because of this it also provides something that the original movies lacked: plot. Not that the plot is very rich, but again, nobody goes to a Conan movie for the story or the plot. Right?
The name either evokes pictures of half naked body builders, and topless wenches, or a very tall man with red, quaffed hair. Well, hopefully the former is what you are all thinking about, because that is what you are going to get. Nobody goes to a Conan movie for the tall, red haired guy. Right?
Jason Momoa, who is not awful to look at for a couple of hours, plays Conan. Physically, he is much truer to the character in the original source material, than the former governor of California. He also has this interesting gravity that makes you sit up and pay attention. Or maybe that was because he was shirtless for most of the movie.
Conan’s story begins as a baby, who is “battle born” and whose first taste, a familiar narrator states, “is not his mother’s milk, but her blood.” He is better then many of his village’s best warrior candidates and joins in a test that ends up being a battle against savages. While the other candidates run back to camp; Conan stay and fights. Not only does he return to the camp having passed the test, but he carries three of the savage’s heads with him. His father (Ron Pearlman) decides it is time to forge a sword and begin to train, with the father imparting sage words like, “You cannot yield the sword until you understand it.”
Conan’s training is interrupted by the arrival of Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang), a ruthless warlord who brings death and destruction to Conan’s village. Zym’s on a a quest to to claim the final piece of a mask that will give him control of the magic of Asheron. Conan is left the sole survivor of his Cimmarian people, growing up to become a fierce warrior intent on avenging his father’s death. All the while, Zym and his daughter Marique continue on Zym’s quest to become a powerful god, in search of a “pureblood” – the one person whose blood will make the mask work. Inevitably, Zym and Conan’s paths cross again and swordfights ensue.
The best thing about this movie, for me, were the female leads. Rose McGowan as Marique and Rachel Nichols as Tamara (the pureblood) are both warriors. It was also excellent to have Conan acknowledge this in Tamara; even saying, “Cimmarian women are warriors, give her the leather and armor.” We would have never heard 1982’s Conan say anything like this.
Listening to people while leaving the movie I heard grumblings about how the Conan character never really had an origin story. This movie provides that, and because of this it also provides something that the original movies lacked: plot. Not that the plot is very rich, but again, nobody goes to a Conan movie for the story or the plot. Right?
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated It in Books
May 16, 2018
As seen first on <a href="http://theghastlygrimoire.com/"; target="_new"><i>The Ghastly Grimoire</i></a>.
If you're looking for an absolute tome of horror to read, It by Stephen King definitely fits that bill. I still prefer The Stand over this book, though. Wrought with the horrific trials visited upon children in the town of Derry, Maine, readers learn to love and loathe an extremely wide range of characters. While much of this book is entertaining, there are a few things I simply cannot condone.
There's a few scenes in here that are sexually graphic. This isn't uncommon in the horror market, and normally doesn't bother me. Only, I made the mistake of laughing off one of my ex's remarks regarding pre-pubescent intercourse and circle-jerking. I'm throwing that out there, in case it's something my readers wish to steer clear of. Not only that, but... Let's just say I prefer the movie's approach to Bev not being afraid, to the actual... what happened in the book, and we'll leave it at that. I cannot stomach some of the scenes of this book, not because they are terrifying, but because they are downright wrong, disgusting, and rather unnecessary.
That rant aside, this massive tome tells two stories alongside one another: the past and present battles with Pennywise the Dancing Clown mingle and cross between one another and, perhaps because I was listening to the audiobook (a whopping 45 hour track, if we're rounding), this made it difficult for me to keep the two straight. In fact, I had to rewind now and then to make sure I was hearing things properly (i.e. aforementioned rant). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: alternating time periods in this manner between the same characters in a story is maddeningly distracting for me.
King's character depth will always astound me. He makes even the briefest characters of his books memorable, giving them a backstory that is fully developed. There are several times he managed to goad emotions out of me that I didn't want to feel, and I love that. Ben Hanscom is by far my favorite, perhaps because in many ways, we share similar childhoods. Parents that care, the bullies, the blossoming from pre-pubescent torture - though the entire Loser's Club endured this, I feel Hanscom had it worst. Not counting Eddie's run in with Henry. His heartfelt devotion for Bev is mesmerizing, and I can only hope they had their happy-ending.
Which... is heartbreaking, in its own right. While I have no doubt there are many things about the sewers of Derry that would be horrible to live with for the rest of your life, can you imagine forgetting chunks of your life, of your past? It has to be absolutely disorienting, and readers can feel it in the conclusion of Bill and Audra's future. They'll never know the incident that happened, nor will they remember their childhood friends whom they loved.
On a brighter note, Steven Weber, the narrator for several of King's books, puts on a dazzling performance in It. He's easily carried away now and then, and it's nice to have a reader that is truly invested into the material he's recording. Weber earns a spot right next to Amanda Dolan as one of my all-time favorite narrators and this production is amazing.
Reluctantly, I have compromised with myself to give this a mid-grade rating. I am a tough critic, and this is something that has caused disagreements between myself and other readers, but in the end, there are elements of this book I simply cannot accept, no matter whose hand wrote them.
Fun fact: My fear of clowns began when I was eight years old and witnessed Tim Curry's Pennywise. It ended with Bill Skarsgard's.
If you're looking for an absolute tome of horror to read, It by Stephen King definitely fits that bill. I still prefer The Stand over this book, though. Wrought with the horrific trials visited upon children in the town of Derry, Maine, readers learn to love and loathe an extremely wide range of characters. While much of this book is entertaining, there are a few things I simply cannot condone.
There's a few scenes in here that are sexually graphic. This isn't uncommon in the horror market, and normally doesn't bother me. Only, I made the mistake of laughing off one of my ex's remarks regarding pre-pubescent intercourse and circle-jerking. I'm throwing that out there, in case it's something my readers wish to steer clear of. Not only that, but... Let's just say I prefer the movie's approach to Bev not being afraid, to the actual... what happened in the book, and we'll leave it at that. I cannot stomach some of the scenes of this book, not because they are terrifying, but because they are downright wrong, disgusting, and rather unnecessary.
That rant aside, this massive tome tells two stories alongside one another: the past and present battles with Pennywise the Dancing Clown mingle and cross between one another and, perhaps because I was listening to the audiobook (a whopping 45 hour track, if we're rounding), this made it difficult for me to keep the two straight. In fact, I had to rewind now and then to make sure I was hearing things properly (i.e. aforementioned rant). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: alternating time periods in this manner between the same characters in a story is maddeningly distracting for me.
King's character depth will always astound me. He makes even the briefest characters of his books memorable, giving them a backstory that is fully developed. There are several times he managed to goad emotions out of me that I didn't want to feel, and I love that. Ben Hanscom is by far my favorite, perhaps because in many ways, we share similar childhoods. Parents that care, the bullies, the blossoming from pre-pubescent torture - though the entire Loser's Club endured this, I feel Hanscom had it worst. Not counting Eddie's run in with Henry. His heartfelt devotion for Bev is mesmerizing, and I can only hope they had their happy-ending.
Which... is heartbreaking, in its own right. While I have no doubt there are many things about the sewers of Derry that would be horrible to live with for the rest of your life, can you imagine forgetting chunks of your life, of your past? It has to be absolutely disorienting, and readers can feel it in the conclusion of Bill and Audra's future. They'll never know the incident that happened, nor will they remember their childhood friends whom they loved.
On a brighter note, Steven Weber, the narrator for several of King's books, puts on a dazzling performance in It. He's easily carried away now and then, and it's nice to have a reader that is truly invested into the material he's recording. Weber earns a spot right next to Amanda Dolan as one of my all-time favorite narrators and this production is amazing.
Reluctantly, I have compromised with myself to give this a mid-grade rating. I am a tough critic, and this is something that has caused disagreements between myself and other readers, but in the end, there are elements of this book I simply cannot accept, no matter whose hand wrote them.
Fun fact: My fear of clowns began when I was eight years old and witnessed Tim Curry's Pennywise. It ended with Bill Skarsgard's.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
May 16, 2018
Several years ago, I watched The Haunting (1999). It was not an intentional watching of the movie and I actually forgot that I had watched it shortly after. Now and then, I would recall a scene and try to remember where it was from without much luck. At that time, I was not aware that it was an adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel, The Haunting of Hill House. In fact, it wasn't until more recently that I returned to my long forgotten passion for the written word. In a way, I'm a bit glad that I read the book - or in this case, listened to it.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.