Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Secret Place in Books
Feb 13, 2018
The fifth installment in Tana French's Dublin Murder Squad series reintroduces some familiar faces, notably Holly Mackey, Frank Mackey, and Stephen Moran from French's [b:Faithful Place|7093952|Faithful Place (Dublin Murder Squad, #3)|Tana French|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1291165900s/7093952.jpg|7350661]. Detective Moran is toiling away in Cold Cases, dreaming of joining the Murder Squad, when Holly shows up. She holds in her hand a card reading "I know who killed him," featuring a photo of Chris Harper, a handsome boy from a private school who was killed a year ago. Suddenly, Stephen finds himself inserted into the middle of St. Kilda's School, Holly's private all-girls' school, the neighborhood school to Chris', and the place where his body was found. Stephen joins up with the Murder Squad's Detective Antoinette Conway, one of the original leads on Chris' case, to find out what happened. But Stephen quickly realizes that Antoinette isn't a popular figure in the Squad, and that the girls of St. Kilda's are a tight-knit, complicated bunch whose interconnected relationships present Conway and Moran many obstacles in finding Chris' killer. Can they find the killer before the girls close ranks for good?
This was a typical Tana French mystery in many ways. This novel is compelling, as always, featuring thoughtful and reflective characters and a detailed, well-plotted mystery. The story is told in alternating chapters by Stephen (in the present-day) and then flashes back to various sections told by the girls of St. Kilda's, who are telling bits of the story leading up to Chris' death. It's an excellent technique because Stephen's portion covers basically 24 hours, as he and Antoinette rush to solve the crime before the girls can cover their tracks once and for all. But by going into the past, French effectively builds suspense and allows us to meet the various teens in her tale (about eight in all, which is a lot at times).
Overall, she does an good job of capturing teen culture: particularly, I'm sure, the culture of British teens in boarding school (shockingly, something I'm not too familiar with). While the descriptions of the girls gets a little tedious (a lot of blond, straightened hair), their personalities are clear and develop easily over the course of the novel. The commentary on the bonds of teen friendship is excellent. For me, Stephen wasn't one of my all-time favorite French protagonists, but I enjoyed the dynamic between him and Conway and how the window into their lives is basically less than 24 hours.
The mystery portion was a little less enjoyable for me than some of French's other novels and a bit of a let down at the end, but it was still a great read. One of my favorite things about French's books is how they easily transport you into another world while reading--you find yourself lost in the characters and their world--and this one was no exception. 3.5 strong stars. I'm looking forward to her next novel, which is supposed to feature Conway again.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
This was a typical Tana French mystery in many ways. This novel is compelling, as always, featuring thoughtful and reflective characters and a detailed, well-plotted mystery. The story is told in alternating chapters by Stephen (in the present-day) and then flashes back to various sections told by the girls of St. Kilda's, who are telling bits of the story leading up to Chris' death. It's an excellent technique because Stephen's portion covers basically 24 hours, as he and Antoinette rush to solve the crime before the girls can cover their tracks once and for all. But by going into the past, French effectively builds suspense and allows us to meet the various teens in her tale (about eight in all, which is a lot at times).
Overall, she does an good job of capturing teen culture: particularly, I'm sure, the culture of British teens in boarding school (shockingly, something I'm not too familiar with). While the descriptions of the girls gets a little tedious (a lot of blond, straightened hair), their personalities are clear and develop easily over the course of the novel. The commentary on the bonds of teen friendship is excellent. For me, Stephen wasn't one of my all-time favorite French protagonists, but I enjoyed the dynamic between him and Conway and how the window into their lives is basically less than 24 hours.
The mystery portion was a little less enjoyable for me than some of French's other novels and a bit of a let down at the end, but it was still a great read. One of my favorite things about French's books is how they easily transport you into another world while reading--you find yourself lost in the characters and their world--and this one was no exception. 3.5 strong stars. I'm looking forward to her next novel, which is supposed to feature Conway again.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
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).
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?
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Nov 11, 2019 (Updated Nov 12, 2019)
39 Years Later: Redrum aka Murder
Doctor Sleep- if you dont know is the sequel to the shining. I have been waiting for this movie to come out ever since it got announced. I read the book over two years again and i loved it. I didnt even know their was a sequel to the shining until i read the book. The book is phenomenal, it is acutally my first stephen king novel that i read and finshed, so to say at less, i was hyped and very anticpated, so what did i think. I thought it was good. I liked it alot.
Ewan McGregor was a perfect cast for Danny Torrance and Rebecca Ferguson was excellent as Rose The Hat and newcomer actress Kyliegh Curran was great as Abra Stone. Mike Flanagan was amazing choice for the dirctor. I liked his other movies that he directed and also loved The Haunting of Hill House which he created and directed.
The Recreated sences from the oringal film was intresting, i liked it not to bad. The hotel looks the same, old, crooked, haunted, scary, horrorfying and terrorfying. The replacements for Dick Hallorann, young Danny, Wendy and Llyod/Jack were intresting. I really liked the actress who played Wendy. As for Dick, i liked the actor who played him. As for young Danny he was good and Llyod/Jack the actor who played him was okay/bad, he just did a impression of Jack Nichoslon and looked like a young Jack Nicolson.
This is intresting, i just found this out: Danny Lloyd, who played Danny Torrance in The Shining, makes a cameo appearance as Bradley Trevor's father. Lloyd had been retired from acting for roughly 38 years, and was direct-messaged on Twitter by Flanagan to appear in the film. Producer Trevor Macy said of Lloyd's involvement, "[Lloyd] was excited to do [the cameo]. He hadn't acted since [the original]. He's a schoolteacher, and a very successful one at that, [who] like[s] making the world better. He came back for a day, and we were thrilled to have him." When pressed as to why the filmmakers did not extend the same offer to Jack Nicholson, Macy responded, "With Jack, I knew that they approached him for Ready Player One, and that he seems to be very serious about being retired. I had known that he was supportive [of the sequel] but retired." Flanagan admitted, "I didn't know how that would really work. Even if he were to come back, if he were appearing as a different character, I thought that would set people's hair on fire. He was absolutely a presence on set, though, whether he knew it or not."
So thats intresting. I would of loved to see Jack Nichloson come out of retirement and play old Jack Torrance.
Doctor Sleep was a great/excellent sequel to the shining and what Mike Flanagan did was perfect he toke elements from Stanley Kubrick's film and made it his own. The cast is great, the story is great, the hotel is great.
If you havent seen the shining than watch it and read it. If you havent seen this movie, than go watch it and read it.
Ewan McGregor was a perfect cast for Danny Torrance and Rebecca Ferguson was excellent as Rose The Hat and newcomer actress Kyliegh Curran was great as Abra Stone. Mike Flanagan was amazing choice for the dirctor. I liked his other movies that he directed and also loved The Haunting of Hill House which he created and directed.
The Recreated sences from the oringal film was intresting, i liked it not to bad. The hotel looks the same, old, crooked, haunted, scary, horrorfying and terrorfying. The replacements for Dick Hallorann, young Danny, Wendy and Llyod/Jack were intresting. I really liked the actress who played Wendy. As for Dick, i liked the actor who played him. As for young Danny he was good and Llyod/Jack the actor who played him was okay/bad, he just did a impression of Jack Nichoslon and looked like a young Jack Nicolson.
This is intresting, i just found this out: Danny Lloyd, who played Danny Torrance in The Shining, makes a cameo appearance as Bradley Trevor's father. Lloyd had been retired from acting for roughly 38 years, and was direct-messaged on Twitter by Flanagan to appear in the film. Producer Trevor Macy said of Lloyd's involvement, "[Lloyd] was excited to do [the cameo]. He hadn't acted since [the original]. He's a schoolteacher, and a very successful one at that, [who] like[s] making the world better. He came back for a day, and we were thrilled to have him." When pressed as to why the filmmakers did not extend the same offer to Jack Nicholson, Macy responded, "With Jack, I knew that they approached him for Ready Player One, and that he seems to be very serious about being retired. I had known that he was supportive [of the sequel] but retired." Flanagan admitted, "I didn't know how that would really work. Even if he were to come back, if he were appearing as a different character, I thought that would set people's hair on fire. He was absolutely a presence on set, though, whether he knew it or not."
So thats intresting. I would of loved to see Jack Nichloson come out of retirement and play old Jack Torrance.
Doctor Sleep was a great/excellent sequel to the shining and what Mike Flanagan did was perfect he toke elements from Stanley Kubrick's film and made it his own. The cast is great, the story is great, the hotel is great.
If you havent seen the shining than watch it and read it. If you havent seen this movie, than go watch it and read it.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Soul Drinker in Books
Jul 25, 2020
The writing (2 more)
No character development
No ending
One of the classic horror tropes is Heaven versus Hell, angels versus demons, good versus evil (like a boogeyman versus an innocent child, or a killer versus a group of teenagers, or even an evil spirit versus an exorcist) and we always know how it's going to end: good triumphs evil, every time. Some of the most well known films with this trope are Constantine (2005), the Exorcist (1973) and more recently, Stephen King's IT : Chapter 2 (2019).
That, along with a little romance, mystery, and historical elements make up this novel that features three main characters who are stuck in a struggle between good and evil while having to face mistakes from the past.
Welcome to the hellish world of Soul Drinker by newcomer, Matthew Yard.
Deep description is what makes up Yard's storytelling, so much so that the book is extremely hard to read. Only 132 pages long, Yard spends most paragraphs describing one single thing in many different ways, such as a young woman's hair, which only needs one sentence to tell such a detail, but instead, took an entire paragraph.
During an ancient civilization, a deity appeared named Destroyer, it found a way to break through the boundaries that separates realms and universes - - - finding our realm, Destroyer leaves his son Luther to build powerful followings through cults run by Pagans.
The novel's villain, Luther, isn't present enough to feel like a real threat for the reader. And the three main characters, other than their physical descriptions, are lifeless because of the extreme lack of character development.
Our main character, Devin, is a college student who constantly has nightmares of his best friend's murder. He also lives at house in the woods which he has no idea how he attained it and this is never explained. After Devin and a classmate named Vic have an encounter with a supernatural cloud, they end up at this house, where readers find out that Devin isn't the only one who has been having nightmares.
Vic is a beautiful, young woman, who Devin seems to be enamoured with, but she is still busy getting over her first love. A few chapters in, readers get flashbacks of Vic's father and mother before she was born. Vic's father was also haunted by this supernatural cloud, which seems to have had a tighter grip on him than Vic - - - her father's flashbacks are the most interesting part of this story.
Vic's father, Jacob, is fast asleep next to his wife when a giant face wakes him up, telling him that there is work to do. Jacob follows the face out into the hallway, when it begins to sway, as if through the eyes of a drunk. Jacob fights the urge to continue to the stairs, wanting to turn back and protect his sleeping wife.
A little while later, we find out that Jacob is psychic: he can see the dead and/or the past. But for anymore development on that interesting piece of information, readers get one glimpse of what Jacob sees - - - and that's it. Jacob's wife, Nina, is an even flatter character, which we only get to see in bed either asleep or waking up. Even Jacob's mental and spiritual fight with the 'face' is disappointingly short with no real tension, no climax, or feelings of betrayal when something finally happens in the end of that scene.
Love, the supernatural, and Pagan cults are what make up the plot of this book. The story jumps between Devin, Vic and Jacob, but the story gets caught up in moments that shouldn't be more than a paragraph, which caused me to become bored with the story. And Yard's writing made this book read like a fan fiction: a lot of inconsistencies throughout, tons of misspellings, and a major overuse of the same words, sometimes even in the same sentence.
Unfortunately, this book was almost unreadable, and the heavy descriptions were extremely off-putting, as was the end of the story- - - the book ended suddenly, and with no sequel in sight. I can't recommend this book to anyone.
That, along with a little romance, mystery, and historical elements make up this novel that features three main characters who are stuck in a struggle between good and evil while having to face mistakes from the past.
Welcome to the hellish world of Soul Drinker by newcomer, Matthew Yard.
Deep description is what makes up Yard's storytelling, so much so that the book is extremely hard to read. Only 132 pages long, Yard spends most paragraphs describing one single thing in many different ways, such as a young woman's hair, which only needs one sentence to tell such a detail, but instead, took an entire paragraph.
During an ancient civilization, a deity appeared named Destroyer, it found a way to break through the boundaries that separates realms and universes - - - finding our realm, Destroyer leaves his son Luther to build powerful followings through cults run by Pagans.
The novel's villain, Luther, isn't present enough to feel like a real threat for the reader. And the three main characters, other than their physical descriptions, are lifeless because of the extreme lack of character development.
Our main character, Devin, is a college student who constantly has nightmares of his best friend's murder. He also lives at house in the woods which he has no idea how he attained it and this is never explained. After Devin and a classmate named Vic have an encounter with a supernatural cloud, they end up at this house, where readers find out that Devin isn't the only one who has been having nightmares.
Vic is a beautiful, young woman, who Devin seems to be enamoured with, but she is still busy getting over her first love. A few chapters in, readers get flashbacks of Vic's father and mother before she was born. Vic's father was also haunted by this supernatural cloud, which seems to have had a tighter grip on him than Vic - - - her father's flashbacks are the most interesting part of this story.
Vic's father, Jacob, is fast asleep next to his wife when a giant face wakes him up, telling him that there is work to do. Jacob follows the face out into the hallway, when it begins to sway, as if through the eyes of a drunk. Jacob fights the urge to continue to the stairs, wanting to turn back and protect his sleeping wife.
A little while later, we find out that Jacob is psychic: he can see the dead and/or the past. But for anymore development on that interesting piece of information, readers get one glimpse of what Jacob sees - - - and that's it. Jacob's wife, Nina, is an even flatter character, which we only get to see in bed either asleep or waking up. Even Jacob's mental and spiritual fight with the 'face' is disappointingly short with no real tension, no climax, or feelings of betrayal when something finally happens in the end of that scene.
Love, the supernatural, and Pagan cults are what make up the plot of this book. The story jumps between Devin, Vic and Jacob, but the story gets caught up in moments that shouldn't be more than a paragraph, which caused me to become bored with the story. And Yard's writing made this book read like a fan fiction: a lot of inconsistencies throughout, tons of misspellings, and a major overuse of the same words, sometimes even in the same sentence.
Unfortunately, this book was almost unreadable, and the heavy descriptions were extremely off-putting, as was the end of the story- - - the book ended suddenly, and with no sequel in sight. I can't recommend this book to anyone.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Institute in Books
Oct 24, 2019
Likable characters (1 more)
Paranormal
Sexualizing children (1 more)
Not a regular King story
At around 95 novels, Stephen King, who is one of the most well-known authors of our time, debuts a possible new novel series about psychic children. 'The Institute' mostly takes place in a hidden facility located in a wooded area of Maine,where readers follow a kidnapped child prodigy named Luke Ellis, and the government experiments that are inflicted on him to heighten his psychic powers.
So why is the government kidnapping children to conduct psychic research on them? At first, it may seem just that: psychic research, because psychic powers seem to be more powerful in young children than adults, but nothing is what it seems. As the boss of this Institute says to the children: " ' There's a war going on, and you have been called upon to serve your country.' " A few sentences later, and she explains it a little more in depth for Ellis: " ' This is not an arms race but a mind race, and if we lose, the consequences would be more than dire; they would be unimaginable. You may only be twelve, but you are a soldier in an undeclared war. The same is true of Kalisha and the others. Do you like it? Of course not. Draftees never do, and draftees sometimes need to be taught that there are consequences for not following orders. I believe you've already had one lesson in that regard. If you're as bright as your records say you are, perhaps you won't need another. If you do, however, you'll get it. This is not your home. This is not your school. You will not simply be given an extra chore or sent to the principal's office or given detention; you will be punished. Clear? ' "
King writes in a third-person point-of-view, which makes it a little disturbing that when any female character he introduces (including girls as young as 11-years-old) are usually introduced by their breast size. It's not uncommon for male writers to introduce female characters this way, but when most of them are children, it can be very off putting for readers. One scene, King makes Ellis notice that Kalisha has 'her hands on her mostly nonexistent hips,' then writes about the character Helen in the same scene: " Another door opened and Helen Simms appeared, clad - - - sort of - - - in what Luke believed were called babydoll pajamas. She had hips, plus other interesting equipment. " Both of these characters are only twelve-years-old.
Aside from the children, King also introduces an important character named Tim Jamieson. This character starts the novel off before readers meet Ellis; we learn that he is a former cop who is traveling to New York while taking odd jobs on his way there, including a night knocker job in DuPray, South Carolina (which becomes very important later on in the story) .
Avery, my personal favorite character in the book, is a ten-year-old who acts like a five-year-old, " The screamer was a little boy in Star Wars pajamas, hammering on doors with small fists that went up and down like pistons. Ten? Avery Dixon looked six, seven at most. The crotch and one leg of his pajama pants were wet and sticking to him. " Dixon and Kalisha are both in the Institute for telepathy. " 'You know so,' Kalisha said, and began to stroke the little boy's [Dixon] hair again. Like had a sense - - - maybe bullshit, maybe not - - - that a lot was going on between them. Inside traffic. " And quickly, the group of children become protective of Dixon, " 'But you need to take care of this one for as long as you can. When I think of Tony or Zeke or that bitch Winona hitting Avery, it makes me want to cry. ' " Kalisha confides in Ellis.
Kalisha, one of the other children that has been kidnapped, is another very likable character that seems to keep all of the other kids' spirits up by either keeping them out of trouble with advice or stopping small fights between them. Another kid named Nicky, the troublemaker of the group, is the stereo-typical bad boy. He gets involved in fistfights with the orderlies that work at the Institute, taking quite a bit of abuse in return. But eventually, the rebelliousness catches up with him, leading him to be moved from Front Half to the dreaded Back Half.
Readers later learn that Back Half is worse than Front Half. Most questions we may have about why the Institute is abusing these children are all answered when readers get to see into Back Half from Kalisha's point-of-view. But what is left unanswered is exactly how many children have been through the Institute? From the amount of children seen just in this story, the numbers could be in the hundreds of thousands!
But, as expected, the children come up with a plan to escape - - - with giving as little detail as possible, an orderlie at the Institute is helped by one of the children with a personal problem, and in return, this orderlie decides to help one of them escape and reveal everything that is the Institute. The instance the escape starts being discussed is when the book really picks up.
King's writing of the abuse our characters sustain is very real (" When Stevie Whipple asked where he'd been and what was wrong, Luke just shook his head. He didn't want to talk about the tank. Not now, not ever. He supposed it was like being in a war. You got drafted, you went, but you didn't want to talk about what you'd seen, or what had happened to you there." ) The scene in which Ellis refuses to speak of is where the orderlie Zeke is trying to make Ellis confess that he is not only telekinesis, but also telepathic: "Zeke hauled him up by the hair. His white tunic was soaked. He looked fixedly at Luke. 'I'm going to put you down again, Luke. Again and again and again. I'll put you down until you drown and then we'll resuscitate you and drown you again and resuscitate you again. Last chance: what number am I thinking of?' "
King brings up a fictional belief that strikes fear in parents everywhere: children being kidnapped for government experiments. Readers witness Ellis' parents being killed, Kalisha being a surrogate mother to kids she barely knows, Nicky being beaten by adults when he refuses to get 'shots for dots,' night terrors, suicide, zap sticks and murder.
This book doesn't read like a regular King book; even with the paranormal aspects occurring in it, it doesn't add up to much. The horror aspect is more in the form of child abuse then paranormal moments. I would only recommend this book to fans of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' and Patterson's 'Maximum Ride.' I don't think I would read this again.
So why is the government kidnapping children to conduct psychic research on them? At first, it may seem just that: psychic research, because psychic powers seem to be more powerful in young children than adults, but nothing is what it seems. As the boss of this Institute says to the children: " ' There's a war going on, and you have been called upon to serve your country.' " A few sentences later, and she explains it a little more in depth for Ellis: " ' This is not an arms race but a mind race, and if we lose, the consequences would be more than dire; they would be unimaginable. You may only be twelve, but you are a soldier in an undeclared war. The same is true of Kalisha and the others. Do you like it? Of course not. Draftees never do, and draftees sometimes need to be taught that there are consequences for not following orders. I believe you've already had one lesson in that regard. If you're as bright as your records say you are, perhaps you won't need another. If you do, however, you'll get it. This is not your home. This is not your school. You will not simply be given an extra chore or sent to the principal's office or given detention; you will be punished. Clear? ' "
King writes in a third-person point-of-view, which makes it a little disturbing that when any female character he introduces (including girls as young as 11-years-old) are usually introduced by their breast size. It's not uncommon for male writers to introduce female characters this way, but when most of them are children, it can be very off putting for readers. One scene, King makes Ellis notice that Kalisha has 'her hands on her mostly nonexistent hips,' then writes about the character Helen in the same scene: " Another door opened and Helen Simms appeared, clad - - - sort of - - - in what Luke believed were called babydoll pajamas. She had hips, plus other interesting equipment. " Both of these characters are only twelve-years-old.
Aside from the children, King also introduces an important character named Tim Jamieson. This character starts the novel off before readers meet Ellis; we learn that he is a former cop who is traveling to New York while taking odd jobs on his way there, including a night knocker job in DuPray, South Carolina (which becomes very important later on in the story) .
Avery, my personal favorite character in the book, is a ten-year-old who acts like a five-year-old, " The screamer was a little boy in Star Wars pajamas, hammering on doors with small fists that went up and down like pistons. Ten? Avery Dixon looked six, seven at most. The crotch and one leg of his pajama pants were wet and sticking to him. " Dixon and Kalisha are both in the Institute for telepathy. " 'You know so,' Kalisha said, and began to stroke the little boy's [Dixon] hair again. Like had a sense - - - maybe bullshit, maybe not - - - that a lot was going on between them. Inside traffic. " And quickly, the group of children become protective of Dixon, " 'But you need to take care of this one for as long as you can. When I think of Tony or Zeke or that bitch Winona hitting Avery, it makes me want to cry. ' " Kalisha confides in Ellis.
Kalisha, one of the other children that has been kidnapped, is another very likable character that seems to keep all of the other kids' spirits up by either keeping them out of trouble with advice or stopping small fights between them. Another kid named Nicky, the troublemaker of the group, is the stereo-typical bad boy. He gets involved in fistfights with the orderlies that work at the Institute, taking quite a bit of abuse in return. But eventually, the rebelliousness catches up with him, leading him to be moved from Front Half to the dreaded Back Half.
Readers later learn that Back Half is worse than Front Half. Most questions we may have about why the Institute is abusing these children are all answered when readers get to see into Back Half from Kalisha's point-of-view. But what is left unanswered is exactly how many children have been through the Institute? From the amount of children seen just in this story, the numbers could be in the hundreds of thousands!
But, as expected, the children come up with a plan to escape - - - with giving as little detail as possible, an orderlie at the Institute is helped by one of the children with a personal problem, and in return, this orderlie decides to help one of them escape and reveal everything that is the Institute. The instance the escape starts being discussed is when the book really picks up.
King's writing of the abuse our characters sustain is very real (" When Stevie Whipple asked where he'd been and what was wrong, Luke just shook his head. He didn't want to talk about the tank. Not now, not ever. He supposed it was like being in a war. You got drafted, you went, but you didn't want to talk about what you'd seen, or what had happened to you there." ) The scene in which Ellis refuses to speak of is where the orderlie Zeke is trying to make Ellis confess that he is not only telekinesis, but also telepathic: "Zeke hauled him up by the hair. His white tunic was soaked. He looked fixedly at Luke. 'I'm going to put you down again, Luke. Again and again and again. I'll put you down until you drown and then we'll resuscitate you and drown you again and resuscitate you again. Last chance: what number am I thinking of?' "
King brings up a fictional belief that strikes fear in parents everywhere: children being kidnapped for government experiments. Readers witness Ellis' parents being killed, Kalisha being a surrogate mother to kids she barely knows, Nicky being beaten by adults when he refuses to get 'shots for dots,' night terrors, suicide, zap sticks and murder.
This book doesn't read like a regular King book; even with the paranormal aspects occurring in it, it doesn't add up to much. The horror aspect is more in the form of child abuse then paranormal moments. I would only recommend this book to fans of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' and Patterson's 'Maximum Ride.' I don't think I would read this again.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021
Tom Hardy's performance. (2 more)
Better CGI than the first film.
The film is stupidly fun.
It is REALLY dumb. (2 more)
Shriek is a wasted character.
Woody Harrelson's "hair."
Idiotic Gold
Venom was an unlikely hit for Sony Pictures making over $850 million worldwide – despite being a sloppy mess of a film.
Written by Jeff Pinkner (Jumanji (2019), The Dark Tower), Scott Rosenberg (Con Air, Gone in 60 Seconds), and Kelly Marcel (Cruella, Fifty Shades of Grey), the first Venom film boasted cheesy 90s dialogue, ugly, blobby CGI/special effects sequences, and a wacky performance from Tom Hardy.
However, its sequel – Venom: Let There Be Carnage – is essentially the restaurant/lobster tank sequence from the first film stretched across 90-minutes of absurdity.
If you revisit Venom before watching Venom: Let There Be Carnage – and more specifically, the end credits sequence from the first film – the difference between the two is almost night and day. At the end of the last film, Eddie showed a calm, confident demeanor totally confident in his demeanor when interviewing Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson).
However, in the actual sequel itself, Eddie is back to looking sick, sweating profusely, and constantly fidgeting while talking to Cletus, obviously showing signs that his attempts to keep Venom under control have taken a toll on him.
Meanwhile, it seems as though the filmmakers couldn’t decide on how to style Harrelson’s red-haired wig for the film, as it humorously changes in appearance nearly every time Cletus is on screen.
Not learning anything from Anne’s (Michelle Williams) decision to leave him in the first film, Venom: Let There Be Carnage sees Eddie attempting to cover Cletus as a way to right his struggling journalism career.
But after Cletus gets a taste of Eddie’s blood, he becomes Carnage, the unpredictable and murderous son of the symbiote.
Kelly Marcell is the only writer from the first film to return, but the sequel mark’s Tom Hardy first feature film writing credit. Hardy contributed a ton of material regarding the intricacies of Venom and Eddie’s relationship – and it shows, as because they obviously know each other very well, the two drive each other crazy and argue like an old married couple.
For example, Venom is sick of eating chickens and being restrained by Eddie’s rules, and throws weird, symbiotic tantrums when he doesn’t get his way, acting very much like a child who isn’t able to play with their favorite toy or eat their favorite candy.
What’s intriguing about Venom and Eddie’s relationship is that it’s complicated, to say the least. There are homosexual undertones in the film, with Venom seemingly having his own ‘coming out party’ and even confessing his love for Eddie, but most of the film’s romantic undertones deal with both Eddie and Venom’s desire to win back Annie – the former because he’s still in love with her, and the latter because he wants Eddie to be happy, as the two humans are better together than they are apart.
It’s not as awkward as Eddie and Venom having a baby in the comics, but it’s still a peculiar way to go about exploring their relationship. Yet, it kind of works with the overall hectic and fast paced nature of the film.
The sequel also features an overall improvement in CGI and special effects, with Venom appearing more detailed in both the black, sleeker, and shinier parts of his body and his head, while his teeth have so much more detail than they did in his first outing.
Carnage being red also allows the audience to decipher what’s occurring on screen so much easier than in the first film, whose final fight between Venom and Riot is a horrid mess of two gray and black symbiotes that kind of just mashes them together into an indistinguishable blob of CGI and hopes that the audience’s imagination can do most of the heavy lifting.
Notably, there’s also a ton of fire in Let There Be Carnage, an ambient background addition which adds additional light sources and makes the action so much easier for your eyes to process.
The transformation sequences are special effects masterpieces because they have almost a werewolf kind of aspect to them – those in-between animations of Tom Hardy’s and Woody Harrelson’s faces being half transformed go a long way.
In particular, Carnage’s introduction is a pretty incredible display, as he causes a ton of mayhem and kills a massive amount of people. However, there is one lame aspect of Carnage’s CGI appearance, which is the goofy ‘tornado’ he turns into to as he violently sweep across his prison block – thankfully, however, it’s a simple thing to look past.
As for the Shriek (Naomie Harris)/Officer Mulligan (Stephen Graham), her entire side story is ultimately unnecessary. Shriek is only included in the film because of her ability to scream, and thus hurt symbiotes (due to their weakness to loud sounds).
Harris also uses a really stupid raspy voice for the role and is basically wasted overall in both her talents as an actor and as a meaningful character.
Venom: Let There Be Carnage never tries to be anything other than a dumb superhero film, but if you hated the first film, the sequel won’t make you feel any differently about Marvel’s lethal protector.
Hardy, in dual roles, is what makes these films worthwhile in the slightest, as his intricately comical self-chemistry is insane. The film also boasts what feels like an accelerated pace that moves the story from action sequence to action sequence before coming to an end rather quickly, leaving Venom: Let There Be Carnage to stand as one of those a special kind of stupid blockbuster endeavors that, every so often, strikes idiotic gold.
The sequel is a definite improvement over the first film in the sense that it totally embraces its stupidity resulting in a comic book film that feels light, silly, and amusingly psychotic all at the same time.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering – yes, the end-credits sequence is as worthwhile as the internet has made it out to be.
Written by Jeff Pinkner (Jumanji (2019), The Dark Tower), Scott Rosenberg (Con Air, Gone in 60 Seconds), and Kelly Marcel (Cruella, Fifty Shades of Grey), the first Venom film boasted cheesy 90s dialogue, ugly, blobby CGI/special effects sequences, and a wacky performance from Tom Hardy.
However, its sequel – Venom: Let There Be Carnage – is essentially the restaurant/lobster tank sequence from the first film stretched across 90-minutes of absurdity.
If you revisit Venom before watching Venom: Let There Be Carnage – and more specifically, the end credits sequence from the first film – the difference between the two is almost night and day. At the end of the last film, Eddie showed a calm, confident demeanor totally confident in his demeanor when interviewing Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson).
However, in the actual sequel itself, Eddie is back to looking sick, sweating profusely, and constantly fidgeting while talking to Cletus, obviously showing signs that his attempts to keep Venom under control have taken a toll on him.
Meanwhile, it seems as though the filmmakers couldn’t decide on how to style Harrelson’s red-haired wig for the film, as it humorously changes in appearance nearly every time Cletus is on screen.
Not learning anything from Anne’s (Michelle Williams) decision to leave him in the first film, Venom: Let There Be Carnage sees Eddie attempting to cover Cletus as a way to right his struggling journalism career.
But after Cletus gets a taste of Eddie’s blood, he becomes Carnage, the unpredictable and murderous son of the symbiote.
Kelly Marcell is the only writer from the first film to return, but the sequel mark’s Tom Hardy first feature film writing credit. Hardy contributed a ton of material regarding the intricacies of Venom and Eddie’s relationship – and it shows, as because they obviously know each other very well, the two drive each other crazy and argue like an old married couple.
For example, Venom is sick of eating chickens and being restrained by Eddie’s rules, and throws weird, symbiotic tantrums when he doesn’t get his way, acting very much like a child who isn’t able to play with their favorite toy or eat their favorite candy.
What’s intriguing about Venom and Eddie’s relationship is that it’s complicated, to say the least. There are homosexual undertones in the film, with Venom seemingly having his own ‘coming out party’ and even confessing his love for Eddie, but most of the film’s romantic undertones deal with both Eddie and Venom’s desire to win back Annie – the former because he’s still in love with her, and the latter because he wants Eddie to be happy, as the two humans are better together than they are apart.
It’s not as awkward as Eddie and Venom having a baby in the comics, but it’s still a peculiar way to go about exploring their relationship. Yet, it kind of works with the overall hectic and fast paced nature of the film.
The sequel also features an overall improvement in CGI and special effects, with Venom appearing more detailed in both the black, sleeker, and shinier parts of his body and his head, while his teeth have so much more detail than they did in his first outing.
Carnage being red also allows the audience to decipher what’s occurring on screen so much easier than in the first film, whose final fight between Venom and Riot is a horrid mess of two gray and black symbiotes that kind of just mashes them together into an indistinguishable blob of CGI and hopes that the audience’s imagination can do most of the heavy lifting.
Notably, there’s also a ton of fire in Let There Be Carnage, an ambient background addition which adds additional light sources and makes the action so much easier for your eyes to process.
The transformation sequences are special effects masterpieces because they have almost a werewolf kind of aspect to them – those in-between animations of Tom Hardy’s and Woody Harrelson’s faces being half transformed go a long way.
In particular, Carnage’s introduction is a pretty incredible display, as he causes a ton of mayhem and kills a massive amount of people. However, there is one lame aspect of Carnage’s CGI appearance, which is the goofy ‘tornado’ he turns into to as he violently sweep across his prison block – thankfully, however, it’s a simple thing to look past.
As for the Shriek (Naomie Harris)/Officer Mulligan (Stephen Graham), her entire side story is ultimately unnecessary. Shriek is only included in the film because of her ability to scream, and thus hurt symbiotes (due to their weakness to loud sounds).
Harris also uses a really stupid raspy voice for the role and is basically wasted overall in both her talents as an actor and as a meaningful character.
Venom: Let There Be Carnage never tries to be anything other than a dumb superhero film, but if you hated the first film, the sequel won’t make you feel any differently about Marvel’s lethal protector.
Hardy, in dual roles, is what makes these films worthwhile in the slightest, as his intricately comical self-chemistry is insane. The film also boasts what feels like an accelerated pace that moves the story from action sequence to action sequence before coming to an end rather quickly, leaving Venom: Let There Be Carnage to stand as one of those a special kind of stupid blockbuster endeavors that, every so often, strikes idiotic gold.
The sequel is a definite improvement over the first film in the sense that it totally embraces its stupidity resulting in a comic book film that feels light, silly, and amusingly psychotic all at the same time.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering – yes, the end-credits sequence is as worthwhile as the internet has made it out to be.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Hadley (567 KP) rated Pet Sematary in Books
Jul 31, 2019
Realistic horror scenes (1 more)
Great writing
Overuse of some words (1 more)
Some contradictions
Louis Creed, the main character of Stephen King's 'Pet Sematary,' wants a good life for his family. He's starting his first term as a newly appointed doctor for the University of Maine. Louis' family moved from Chicago to Maine for this very job, which consists of his young daughter, Ellie, his wife, Rachel, his infant son, Gage, and Ellie's black cat, Church (which is short for Winston Churchill). This cat quickly becomes the topic of conversation when the Creeds' new neighbor, Jud Crandall, warns them about the road in front of their house: " 'I'd get him fixed, ' Crandall said, crushing his smoke between his thumb and forefinger. 'A fixed cat don't tend to wander as much. But if it's all the time crossing back and forth, its luck will run out, and it'll end up there with the Ryder kids' coon and little Timmy Dessler's cocker spaniel and Missus Bradleigh's parakeet. Not that the parakeet got run over in the road, you understand. It just went feet up one day.' "
When Louis becomes curious about a trail behind his new home that leads into the woods, Jud gladly introduces the Creed family to the infamous 'Pet Sematary.' A place where children, for years, have buried their pets when they die. This place, and the death of Church, form the starting basis of King's amazing novel.
Louis' life suddenly changes after the death of a University student named Victor Pascow, and gets even worse when Louis starts to have dreams about him. One night, even the ghost of Pascow shows up at Louis' house: " He stood there with his head bashed in behind the left temple. The blood had dried on his face in maroon stripes like Indian warpaint. His collarbone jutted whitely. He was grinning. 'Come on, Doctor,' Pascow said. 'We got places to go.' " Louis ends up following Pascow to the pet sematary where he tells him: " 'I come as a friend,' Pascow said--- but was friend actually the word Pascow had used? Louis thought not. It was as if Pascow had spoken in a foreign language which Louis could understand through some dream magic... and friend was as close as to whatever word Pascow had actually used that Louis's struggling mind could come. ' Your destruction and the destruction of all you love is very near, Doctor.' He was close enough for Louis to be able to smell death on him. "
Later on, Louis feels Pascow's premonition might be coming true when he finds that Church has been killed by a passing vehicle. Jud, who happened to find Church, tells him to follow him so that they can bury the cat, but Jud doesn't stop at the pet sematary as expected, instead he goes past a deadfall barrier and continues on to a place he calls the Micmac Burial Ground, a burial ground that was made by the Micmac Indians. Through this entire scene, Louis experiences paranormal-type things, including the maniacal laughter of a disembodied voice. Jud warns Louis to not pay any attention to anything he experiences here: " 'You might see St. Elmo's fire- - - what the sailors call foo-lights. It makes funny shapes, but it's nothing. If you should see some of those shapes and they bother you, just look the other way. You may hear sounds like voices, but they are the loons down south toward Prospect. The sound carries. It's funny.' "
Now, the real story begins when Church returns to the house after his burial, where Louis finds dried blood on the cat's face and small pieces of plastic from the garbage bag his body had been in. Breathing and eating, the cat has certainly come back to life, but Louis notices that Church isn't the same as he was before; while Louis is in a hot bath, Church takes a seat on the toilet, where we witness him swaying back and forth, from this point on, Louis starts to regret following Jud to the Micmac burial ground.
Ellie, Louis' daughter, begins to suspect that something is different about Church, but she shrugs it off and doesn't necessarily question it:
" 'Daddy?' Ellie said in a low, subdued voice.
'What, Ellie? '
'Church smells funny.'
'Does he?' Louis asked, his voice carefully neutral.
'Yes!' Ellie said, distressed. 'Yes, he does! He never smelled funny before! He smells like... he smells like ka-ka!'
'Well, maybe he rolled in something bad, honey,' Louis said. 'Whatever that bad smell is, he'll lost it.'
'I certainly hope so,' Ellie said in a comical dowager's voice. She walked off. " King spends a majority of 'Pet Sematary' addressing everyone's fear of death; he discusses parents' fear of explaining death to their children for the first time, and even makes readers face the real nightmare of losing a child.
And the realism that King writes about is what makes him the great writer that he is today. King writes about the death of a child, but also makes Louis into a very real character that any parent could relate to. While many books touch on this subject, none can touch on grief like King does: " It was well for Louis- - - well for all three of the remaining family members--- that Steve had shown up as promptly as he had, because Louis was at least temporarily unable to make any kind of decision, even one so minor as giving his wife a shot to mute her deep grief. Louis hadn't even noticed that Rachel had apparently meant to go to the morning viewing in her housecoat, which she had misbuttoned. Her hair was uncombed, unwashed, tangled. Her eyes, blank brown orbits, bulged from sockets so sunken that they had almost become the eyes of a living skull. Her flesh was doughy. It hung from her face. She sat at the breakfast table that morning, munching unbuttered toast and talking in disjointed phrases that made no sense at all. At one point she had said abruptly, 'About that Winnebago you want to buy, Lou---' Louis had last spoken about buying a Winnebago in 1981. "
Yet, this isn't a book about grief, but a horror book about grief, which King masterfully put together. He molds the darkness of losing a child with the horror of making zombies, but King makes the story seem so realistic that any parent would go to the lengths that Louis did - - -and Jud, for that matter - - - even with the dire consequences at stake: " You're slanting all the evidence in favor of the conclusion you want to produce, his [Louis] mind protested. At least tell yourself the goddamned truth about the change in Church. Even if you want to disqualify the animals--- the mice and the birds--- what about the way he is? Muddled... that's the best word of all, that sums it up. The day we were out with the kite. You remember how Gage was that day? How vibrant and alive he was, reacting to everything? Wouldn't it be better to remember him that way? Do you want to resurrect a zombie from a grade-B horror picture? Or even something so prosaic as a retarded little boy? A boy who eats with his fingers and stares blankly at images on the TV screen and who will never learn to write his own name? What did Jud say about his dog? 'It was like washing a piece of meat.' Is that what you want? A piece of breathing meat? And even if you're able to be satisfied with that, how do you explain the return of your son from the dead to your wife? To your daughter? To Steve Masterton? To the world? What happens the first time Missy Dandridge pulls into the driveway and sees Gage riding his trike in the yard? Can't you hear her screams, Louis? Can't you see her harrowing her face with her fingernails? What do you say to the reporters? What do you say when a film crew from 'Real People' turns up on your doorstep, wanting to shoot film of your resurrected son? "
Pet Sematary is an emotional thrill ride, with Louis as a very relatable character, and the writing makes this a must-read book for all readers. With one of my favorite descriptive parts taking place in the 'Little God Swamp' that exists just outside of the Micmac Burial Ground when King describes the legendary Wendigo:
" The mist stained to a dull slate- gray for a moment, but this diffuse, ill-defined watermark was better than sixty feet high. It was no shade, no insubstantial ghost; he could feel the displaced air of its passage, could hear the mammoth thud of its feet coming down, the suck of mud as it moved on. For a moment he believed he saw twin yellow- orange sparks high above him. Sparks like eyes. "
The novel is so well-written that it reads easily, and King's descriptions put the reader right inside of the book.
With a few inconsistencies here and there, and overuse of some words, Pet Sematary is a very enjoyable book for lovers of the horror genre. I highly recommend this book!
When Louis becomes curious about a trail behind his new home that leads into the woods, Jud gladly introduces the Creed family to the infamous 'Pet Sematary.' A place where children, for years, have buried their pets when they die. This place, and the death of Church, form the starting basis of King's amazing novel.
Louis' life suddenly changes after the death of a University student named Victor Pascow, and gets even worse when Louis starts to have dreams about him. One night, even the ghost of Pascow shows up at Louis' house: " He stood there with his head bashed in behind the left temple. The blood had dried on his face in maroon stripes like Indian warpaint. His collarbone jutted whitely. He was grinning. 'Come on, Doctor,' Pascow said. 'We got places to go.' " Louis ends up following Pascow to the pet sematary where he tells him: " 'I come as a friend,' Pascow said--- but was friend actually the word Pascow had used? Louis thought not. It was as if Pascow had spoken in a foreign language which Louis could understand through some dream magic... and friend was as close as to whatever word Pascow had actually used that Louis's struggling mind could come. ' Your destruction and the destruction of all you love is very near, Doctor.' He was close enough for Louis to be able to smell death on him. "
Later on, Louis feels Pascow's premonition might be coming true when he finds that Church has been killed by a passing vehicle. Jud, who happened to find Church, tells him to follow him so that they can bury the cat, but Jud doesn't stop at the pet sematary as expected, instead he goes past a deadfall barrier and continues on to a place he calls the Micmac Burial Ground, a burial ground that was made by the Micmac Indians. Through this entire scene, Louis experiences paranormal-type things, including the maniacal laughter of a disembodied voice. Jud warns Louis to not pay any attention to anything he experiences here: " 'You might see St. Elmo's fire- - - what the sailors call foo-lights. It makes funny shapes, but it's nothing. If you should see some of those shapes and they bother you, just look the other way. You may hear sounds like voices, but they are the loons down south toward Prospect. The sound carries. It's funny.' "
Now, the real story begins when Church returns to the house after his burial, where Louis finds dried blood on the cat's face and small pieces of plastic from the garbage bag his body had been in. Breathing and eating, the cat has certainly come back to life, but Louis notices that Church isn't the same as he was before; while Louis is in a hot bath, Church takes a seat on the toilet, where we witness him swaying back and forth, from this point on, Louis starts to regret following Jud to the Micmac burial ground.
Ellie, Louis' daughter, begins to suspect that something is different about Church, but she shrugs it off and doesn't necessarily question it:
" 'Daddy?' Ellie said in a low, subdued voice.
'What, Ellie? '
'Church smells funny.'
'Does he?' Louis asked, his voice carefully neutral.
'Yes!' Ellie said, distressed. 'Yes, he does! He never smelled funny before! He smells like... he smells like ka-ka!'
'Well, maybe he rolled in something bad, honey,' Louis said. 'Whatever that bad smell is, he'll lost it.'
'I certainly hope so,' Ellie said in a comical dowager's voice. She walked off. " King spends a majority of 'Pet Sematary' addressing everyone's fear of death; he discusses parents' fear of explaining death to their children for the first time, and even makes readers face the real nightmare of losing a child.
And the realism that King writes about is what makes him the great writer that he is today. King writes about the death of a child, but also makes Louis into a very real character that any parent could relate to. While many books touch on this subject, none can touch on grief like King does: " It was well for Louis- - - well for all three of the remaining family members--- that Steve had shown up as promptly as he had, because Louis was at least temporarily unable to make any kind of decision, even one so minor as giving his wife a shot to mute her deep grief. Louis hadn't even noticed that Rachel had apparently meant to go to the morning viewing in her housecoat, which she had misbuttoned. Her hair was uncombed, unwashed, tangled. Her eyes, blank brown orbits, bulged from sockets so sunken that they had almost become the eyes of a living skull. Her flesh was doughy. It hung from her face. She sat at the breakfast table that morning, munching unbuttered toast and talking in disjointed phrases that made no sense at all. At one point she had said abruptly, 'About that Winnebago you want to buy, Lou---' Louis had last spoken about buying a Winnebago in 1981. "
Yet, this isn't a book about grief, but a horror book about grief, which King masterfully put together. He molds the darkness of losing a child with the horror of making zombies, but King makes the story seem so realistic that any parent would go to the lengths that Louis did - - -and Jud, for that matter - - - even with the dire consequences at stake: " You're slanting all the evidence in favor of the conclusion you want to produce, his [Louis] mind protested. At least tell yourself the goddamned truth about the change in Church. Even if you want to disqualify the animals--- the mice and the birds--- what about the way he is? Muddled... that's the best word of all, that sums it up. The day we were out with the kite. You remember how Gage was that day? How vibrant and alive he was, reacting to everything? Wouldn't it be better to remember him that way? Do you want to resurrect a zombie from a grade-B horror picture? Or even something so prosaic as a retarded little boy? A boy who eats with his fingers and stares blankly at images on the TV screen and who will never learn to write his own name? What did Jud say about his dog? 'It was like washing a piece of meat.' Is that what you want? A piece of breathing meat? And even if you're able to be satisfied with that, how do you explain the return of your son from the dead to your wife? To your daughter? To Steve Masterton? To the world? What happens the first time Missy Dandridge pulls into the driveway and sees Gage riding his trike in the yard? Can't you hear her screams, Louis? Can't you see her harrowing her face with her fingernails? What do you say to the reporters? What do you say when a film crew from 'Real People' turns up on your doorstep, wanting to shoot film of your resurrected son? "
Pet Sematary is an emotional thrill ride, with Louis as a very relatable character, and the writing makes this a must-read book for all readers. With one of my favorite descriptive parts taking place in the 'Little God Swamp' that exists just outside of the Micmac Burial Ground when King describes the legendary Wendigo:
" The mist stained to a dull slate- gray for a moment, but this diffuse, ill-defined watermark was better than sixty feet high. It was no shade, no insubstantial ghost; he could feel the displaced air of its passage, could hear the mammoth thud of its feet coming down, the suck of mud as it moved on. For a moment he believed he saw twin yellow- orange sparks high above him. Sparks like eyes. "
The novel is so well-written that it reads easily, and King's descriptions put the reader right inside of the book.
With a few inconsistencies here and there, and overuse of some words, Pet Sematary is a very enjoyable book for lovers of the horror genre. I highly recommend this book!