Search
Exceptional
I'm a super fan of Stephen King, but this is a force to be reckoned with.
The characters are so well written, that you empathise and feel the fear with them.
There's so many different characters and sub stories within the novel that you never see in any adaptation.
It's a really long book, and it did take me a while to really get engrossed in it, but it's so worth it.
It's marvellous, greatest book I've ever read, it's a real treat. I did have to read it with the light on.
The characters are so well written, that you empathise and feel the fear with them.
There's so many different characters and sub stories within the novel that you never see in any adaptation.
It's a really long book, and it did take me a while to really get engrossed in it, but it's so worth it.
It's marvellous, greatest book I've ever read, it's a real treat. I did have to read it with the light on.
Historical (2 more)
Fast read
Relate-able characters
Historical yet up to date
This is probably one of my all-time favorite Stephen King books. It has a focus on history without feeling like a documentary. The characters feel very "real" and it's easy to become attached to what is happening in their lives. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys playing games of "what-if" when it comes to major events in history. Questioning how things could have gone differently is a fun way to look back through the lives of these characters.
Logan (76 KP) rated Lisey's Story in Books
Jan 22, 2019
Bad gunky (1 more)
Very slow for the first half of the book
Dumb little Lisey(?)
I'm a longtime Stephen King reader and this one was a chore to finish. If I could rate sections separately, I'd give the first half 2/10 and the second half 8/10. It's structured with lots of flashbacks throughout the story, and those do add to the story once you've reached a certain point, but it felt pretty tedious getting there. Lisey is often described as unintelligent, but I never really saw that - she was usually competent and sometimes clever.
Refreshingly different voices (1 more)
Short, easy to digest stories
Listen to the call!
A solid anthology, there were some weaker tales in there but no more than a Stephen King short story collection.
Really interesting mix of different perspectives and writing styles. I was impressed at how they were all given the same prompt and yet did such vastly different things with it.
Some of them really stuck with me. 'Forest Man' definitely got me the most. It drew me in wonderfully and successfully creeped me out.
------------------
Thank you to Book Sirens and the publisher for the ARC in exchange for my honest review.
Really interesting mix of different perspectives and writing styles. I was impressed at how they were all given the same prompt and yet did such vastly different things with it.
Some of them really stuck with me. 'Forest Man' definitely got me the most. It drew me in wonderfully and successfully creeped me out.
------------------
Thank you to Book Sirens and the publisher for the ARC in exchange for my honest review.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Pet Sematary (1989) in Movies
Jun 27, 2019
Sometimes dead is better
Contains spoilers, click to show
Pet sematary- is a good adaption of the novel by stephen king.
Doctor Louis Creed moves his family to Maine, where he meets a friendly local named Jud Crandall. After the Creeds' cat is accidentally killed, Crandall advises Louis to bury it in the ground near the old pet cemetery. The cat returns to life, its personality changed for the worse. When Louis' son, Gage, dies tragically, Louis decides to bury the boy's body in the same ground despite the warnings of Crandall and Louis' visions of a deceased patient.
Its haunted, terrorfying, scary and overall good.
Doctor Louis Creed moves his family to Maine, where he meets a friendly local named Jud Crandall. After the Creeds' cat is accidentally killed, Crandall advises Louis to bury it in the ground near the old pet cemetery. The cat returns to life, its personality changed for the worse. When Louis' son, Gage, dies tragically, Louis decides to bury the boy's body in the same ground despite the warnings of Crandall and Louis' visions of a deceased patient.
Its haunted, terrorfying, scary and overall good.
Bite Me (A Love Story, #3)
Book
The undead rise again in Bite Me, the third book in New York Times bestselling author Christopher...
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
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).
Storyline (1 more)
Characters
Short but Worth the Read!
Being an avid King fan, I could not wait to read his latest novel, Elevation, and was a bit dismayed by the brevity. Upon starting the first chapter, however, I quickly realized that King had once again duped me into thinking he was only capable of writing long, winding novels (I've been duped before by his short story books and by Joyland) and I was pleasantly entertained from the first word to the last.
Elevation is set in a small town, like most of King's stories, one which gives off the air of being both a town to love and one to avoid on a family trip; it has the small town charm we all look for but comes with the small town bigotry as well. Our main character is a long-time resident with an already established problem of which there seems to be no cure and a rocky relationship with his neighbors, one that has a profound effect on his future. King manages to pull his reader in from first page and attach you to his characters, and not just the protagonist but the supporting cast as well, in a way that will leave you desperately wishing there were just a few more pages.
All in all, Elevation is another Stephen King that should not be passed up, filled with a strong central message about how we view the world and the people in it.
Elevation is set in a small town, like most of King's stories, one which gives off the air of being both a town to love and one to avoid on a family trip; it has the small town charm we all look for but comes with the small town bigotry as well. Our main character is a long-time resident with an already established problem of which there seems to be no cure and a rocky relationship with his neighbors, one that has a profound effect on his future. King manages to pull his reader in from first page and attach you to his characters, and not just the protagonist but the supporting cast as well, in a way that will leave you desperately wishing there were just a few more pages.
All in all, Elevation is another Stephen King that should not be passed up, filled with a strong central message about how we view the world and the people in it.
David McK (3369 KP) rated The Gunslinger in Books
Jan 28, 2019
This is almost heresy, I know (at least, to certain sections of the internet) but I've never actually really been all that big a fan of Stephen King.
Never-the-less - and prompted, somewhat, by the upcoming movie - I thought I would still give what King himself considers to be his magnum opus a go.
And, I have to say - much like the central character of Roland Deschain is described - I found this to be somewhat slow, somewhat plodding, lacking any real sense of urgency or adventure. That's not to say there's no real striking imagery associated with it: for me, the best bit is the shoot-out in the town, but this just (as a whole) did not do it for me and has somewhat dooused my interest in going to see mthat ovie
For my post-apocayptic(ish) cowboy reading, I think I'll stick with David Gemmell's Jon Shannow trilogy.
Never-the-less - and prompted, somewhat, by the upcoming movie - I thought I would still give what King himself considers to be his magnum opus a go.
And, I have to say - much like the central character of Roland Deschain is described - I found this to be somewhat slow, somewhat plodding, lacking any real sense of urgency or adventure. That's not to say there's no real striking imagery associated with it: for me, the best bit is the shoot-out in the town, but this just (as a whole) did not do it for me and has somewhat dooused my interest in going to see mthat ovie
For my post-apocayptic(ish) cowboy reading, I think I'll stick with David Gemmell's Jon Shannow trilogy.