Search
Search results
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Elevation in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Although this book was very well written I was disapointed by the lack of the depth most of Stephen King's work usually contains. I should not have been that surprised because of how small the book was yet I was still expecting more. I also thought that this book seemed a little too much like an earlier work by Stephen King titled Thinner.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Mr Mercedes in Books
Nov 22, 2017
Stephen King at its best (3 more)
great characters
Insane Villian
Great Twists
A New Look into a Killers Eyes
I have been a Stephen King fan for a very very long time. But it has been a while since a book like this has come out and kept me wanting to keep reading it till it was done. I am not the biggest reader of book and it can take me awhile to finish them. I tend to spend more time watching tv and movies over reading. This book though kept me on the edge of my seat.
This book really went to a place most crime novels don't go to and that is a story about a retired detective on the verge of suicide. I feel like most retire cops go into something else and not just sit around all day. But he is pulled out by a case that got away, which is a good motivator. The one and done type of killer is very rare as well. Usually these types of psychos always go out for more. I don't know if it was lack of drive which most killers don't have or patience which he seemed to have a lot of. It was definitely different.
I can't wait to read the next 2 books in the series and watch the TV show to see how it compares. Until next time, enjoy the read.
This book really went to a place most crime novels don't go to and that is a story about a retired detective on the verge of suicide. I feel like most retire cops go into something else and not just sit around all day. But he is pulled out by a case that got away, which is a good motivator. The one and done type of killer is very rare as well. Usually these types of psychos always go out for more. I don't know if it was lack of drive which most killers don't have or patience which he seemed to have a lot of. It was definitely different.
I can't wait to read the next 2 books in the series and watch the TV show to see how it compares. Until next time, enjoy the read.
Rachel Maria Berney (114 KP) rated Norse Mythology in Books
Dec 4, 2018
A little informative and interesting
Contains spoilers, click to show
I love Neil Gaiman. I was so excited to read this book as I really enjoyed American Gods and jabe a love of Viking history. Right before reading this I read Stephen Fry's Mythology, unlucky for Neil and me. I can't help but compare the two and Gaiman's Norse Mythology comes up short. Whilst we do have access to more information of Greek myth than Norse myth, I don't think that's the entire reason that Norse Mythology is a hard read. The telling of the Norse stories doesn't have the flow I have come to expect from Gaiman, there is a strangled growth to it that makes for a choppy reading that is just hard work and not that enjoyable. Gaiman's style and what I enjoy about him is too constrained in this retelling of Norse myths, this may be due to a lack of evidence of Norse myth and history. I think it would have worked well online, as blog posts etc. As a book it is something easily put down, forgotten about and never finished.
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Gwendy's Button Box in Books
Jan 31, 2018
An interesting plot bunny, but a bland book.
So, one of the things that makes a lot of horror book lovers give me the stink-eye is the fact that I freely admit to the fact that I don't really like to read Stephen King's books. I'm a huge fan of his plots, but I have an attention span the length of a gnat, so when he goes off on his 'wanders', I go glaze-eyed and generally move on to something else.
But, I saw everyone talking about Gwendy's Button Box, and took note of the fact that it had been 'co-written' by Richard Chizmar. Given the fact that it was a novella, I decided to give it a try. (I got the audio version from the library.) And.. it was... okay? Yeah, okay is the right word.
The narrator did a fantastic job as Gwendy, and the concept of the Button Box was a great one. The character development of Gwendy is excellent. However, the actual story itself just left me scratching my head and wondering if I missed something. It was a good thought experiment, but coming from two horror writers, I was a little taken aback at the lack of actual, you know, horror.
But, I saw everyone talking about Gwendy's Button Box, and took note of the fact that it had been 'co-written' by Richard Chizmar. Given the fact that it was a novella, I decided to give it a try. (I got the audio version from the library.) And.. it was... okay? Yeah, okay is the right word.
The narrator did a fantastic job as Gwendy, and the concept of the Button Box was a great one. The character development of Gwendy is excellent. However, the actual story itself just left me scratching my head and wondering if I missed something. It was a good thought experiment, but coming from two horror writers, I was a little taken aback at the lack of actual, you know, horror.
Leila (5 KP) rated Gwendy's Button Box in Books
Feb 3, 2019 (Updated Feb 3, 2019)
I'll admit, I checked this book out of the library and let it sit for a few months (I'm terrible, I know), but not for lack of interest, I just didn't have the time to sit down and read. Once I finally got around to it, I had completely forgotten why I had grabbed it up! The cover did not immediately scream "Stephen King" so I was a bit apprehensive starting out, willing myself to push through the first couple of pages.
To my surprise, I needn't have given myself such a talking to, as the book drew me in from first word. The main character has relatable relationships with the people around her, portrayed as the kid we all knew (or were) growing up, the one that just wanted to fit in and was always just on the outskirts. Things change of course, with the help of a special box, and we get a very real glimpse into how humanity deals with great power and responsibility.
My only criticism is that for once, I wasn't satisfied at the end of a King book, wishing there was a bit more, especially concerning the box itself. But then, if we always got all the answers, it wouldn't be a King book, now would it?
To my surprise, I needn't have given myself such a talking to, as the book drew me in from first word. The main character has relatable relationships with the people around her, portrayed as the kid we all knew (or were) growing up, the one that just wanted to fit in and was always just on the outskirts. Things change of course, with the help of a special box, and we get a very real glimpse into how humanity deals with great power and responsibility.
My only criticism is that for once, I wasn't satisfied at the end of a King book, wishing there was a bit more, especially concerning the box itself. But then, if we always got all the answers, it wouldn't be a King book, now would it?
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
The best way to describe the most recent adaption of Stephen King's It, is that it feels like a ghost train.
It's one scene after the next of spooky imagery and mild jump scares - it's not overly terrifying, but it's an enjoyable time.
I didn't find It to be particularly scary - there were parts here and there that were uncomfortable (the old woman in the background of the library scene - no focus on her whatsoever, but it gave me chills) and of course, the already infamous scene at the beginning with Georgie is hard to watch considering the age of the child.
But it's lack of all out terror is not a bad thing - the movie can concentrate on a hugely important aspect of the original book - the friendship shared betweens The Losers Club.
The young actors in this are great, all hugely believable, and likable, as they set off on their quest to stop Pennywise and his reign over the town of Derry.
In a world transfixed with Stranger Things, the atmosphere of It treads familiar turf, the 80s setting hitting the right nostalgic spots.
Bill Skarsgård makes a great Pennywise. He doesn't try to copy what the great Tim Curry did in the original TV movie, he makes it his own. He's not quite as sinister as Tim Curry, but he's damn entertaining, and his costume and make up make for a creepy enough clown.
I'm really looking forward to the upcoming Chapter 2, to see if Andy Muschietti can pull off the ending as well as he pulled off the beginning.
It's one scene after the next of spooky imagery and mild jump scares - it's not overly terrifying, but it's an enjoyable time.
I didn't find It to be particularly scary - there were parts here and there that were uncomfortable (the old woman in the background of the library scene - no focus on her whatsoever, but it gave me chills) and of course, the already infamous scene at the beginning with Georgie is hard to watch considering the age of the child.
But it's lack of all out terror is not a bad thing - the movie can concentrate on a hugely important aspect of the original book - the friendship shared betweens The Losers Club.
The young actors in this are great, all hugely believable, and likable, as they set off on their quest to stop Pennywise and his reign over the town of Derry.
In a world transfixed with Stranger Things, the atmosphere of It treads familiar turf, the 80s setting hitting the right nostalgic spots.
Bill Skarsgård makes a great Pennywise. He doesn't try to copy what the great Tim Curry did in the original TV movie, he makes it his own. He's not quite as sinister as Tim Curry, but he's damn entertaining, and his costume and make up make for a creepy enough clown.
I'm really looking forward to the upcoming Chapter 2, to see if Andy Muschietti can pull off the ending as well as he pulled off the beginning.
JT (287 KP) rated Ca$h (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
A contender for one of the worst thrillers ever, this is nothing more than a total disaster. And that is being generous!
Director Stephen Milburn Anderson’s last outing was with Dead Men Can’t Dance back in 1997, and after such a long break you wonder why he stepped back behind the camera. The film’s central plot has been graced in Hollywood one way or another, at least in a different guise.
A bag of money from a robbery falls in the lap of Sam (Chris Hemsworth) and Leslie Phelan (Victoria Profeta) and so beings the moral dilemma. It doesn’t take long for the couple to blow and hide most of the money.
Sean Bean complete with trademark Sheffield accent steps in as Pyke Kubic tasked with recovering the half million dollar loot to split between himself and his brother who is in prison (also played by Bean).
For most you’d expect a game of cat and mouse, gripping edge of seat stuff. Forget that, what you are handed is a rather boring plot of Bean meticulously accounting for all the missing cash and spending time with the couple inside their home as some sort of unwanted house guest.
There is no need for violence here, he’s polite and calm but at the same time attempts to be chilling even insulting the couple for their lack of meat in home cooking. Christ, he even goes out to buy them food for their fridge!
It really is embarrassing to watch and sad, as put in the right hands this could have been a real sleeper hit. Two simple words, “don’t bother”!
Director Stephen Milburn Anderson’s last outing was with Dead Men Can’t Dance back in 1997, and after such a long break you wonder why he stepped back behind the camera. The film’s central plot has been graced in Hollywood one way or another, at least in a different guise.
A bag of money from a robbery falls in the lap of Sam (Chris Hemsworth) and Leslie Phelan (Victoria Profeta) and so beings the moral dilemma. It doesn’t take long for the couple to blow and hide most of the money.
Sean Bean complete with trademark Sheffield accent steps in as Pyke Kubic tasked with recovering the half million dollar loot to split between himself and his brother who is in prison (also played by Bean).
For most you’d expect a game of cat and mouse, gripping edge of seat stuff. Forget that, what you are handed is a rather boring plot of Bean meticulously accounting for all the missing cash and spending time with the couple inside their home as some sort of unwanted house guest.
There is no need for violence here, he’s polite and calm but at the same time attempts to be chilling even insulting the couple for their lack of meat in home cooking. Christ, he even goes out to buy them food for their fridge!
It really is embarrassing to watch and sad, as put in the right hands this could have been a real sleeper hit. Two simple words, “don’t bother”!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
Solid Performances (1 more)
Believable Set Design
Sometimes Your Own Demons Are The Hardest To Escape
1922 is the second Stephen King story adapted for Netflix in the last two months and it is very different to the adaption of Gerald's Game we saw back in September. The movie is set up nicely, showing an older, shaken man writing out his confession in hopes of appeasing the guilt that has plagued him since he murdered his wife Arlette. We then see a younger version of the man, Wilfred and we learn that he is very protective of the three things that he feels, 'belong,' to him; his son, his wife and his land.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1408 (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: With the story of a sceptic investigating paranormal events but then ends up stuck in these paranormal events he so very much doesn’t believe in, is a very clichéd story. This has most of this and adds in that he is a writer with a dark past involving loss you know where this is going. Mixing it all together we get the idea of redemption for the mistakes we may have done in life. One weak point of this film is that there are two endings that paint a very different picture of the events that happen in the film, I personally prefer the Director’s Cut as I find it has more answer than the Theatrical Cut. (8/10)
Actor Reviews
John Cusack: Mike Enslin after suffering a personal loss Mike travels around writing about so called haunted hotel and location, bringing out a string of top 10 books looking at his experiences or lack thereof. Mike gets a postcard and against all the advice of the hotel manager he enters the room 1408, were he really gets put to the test. Mike starts off being distant from people, be it fans or his general style of conversation, but soon after the events start happening he changes too quickly for what his character has been through. John does a good job with the role as most of the film is solely around him. (8/10)
cusack
Samuel L. Jackson: Gerald Olin the manager of the Dolphin hotel trying to protect Mike from entering the room with all kinds of bribes, he tells the full history of the room but unfortunately lets him stay in the room. Good supporting performance from Jackson rarely seen, he is the dominant persona you would expect to see. (8/10)
sam
Director Review: Mikael Hafstrom – Creates some very good scares and keeps you guessing on what is going on, add in what I think is the better ending you get a very good piece of direction. (8/10)
Horror: Has some solid scares and some you really don’t see coming along with some nicely built up ones. (9/10)
Mystery: You are constantly wondering what is going on, but a lot is explained at the end. (9/10)
Thriller: Keeps you at the edge of your seat just wait to know what happens next. (9/10)
Settings: The hotel room feels very ordinary but once things starting to happen it turns into a nightmare, working very well for the genre. (9/10)
Special Effects: Strong special effects used throughout. (9/10)
Suggestion: If you are a fan of horror you will enjoy this, if you are a fan of Stephen King you will enjoy this otherwise this one isn’t really for you. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The vents scene.
Worst Part: The two different endings can confuse when talking about this film with others.
Scariest Scene: Vent scene.
Believability: I give this a one because there are people like Mike you investigate the paranormal, but what happens isn’t believable. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $131,998,242
Budget: $25 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the terrifying story by Stephen King
Overall: Good Atmospheric Horror
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/28/1408-2007/
Actor Reviews
John Cusack: Mike Enslin after suffering a personal loss Mike travels around writing about so called haunted hotel and location, bringing out a string of top 10 books looking at his experiences or lack thereof. Mike gets a postcard and against all the advice of the hotel manager he enters the room 1408, were he really gets put to the test. Mike starts off being distant from people, be it fans or his general style of conversation, but soon after the events start happening he changes too quickly for what his character has been through. John does a good job with the role as most of the film is solely around him. (8/10)
cusack
Samuel L. Jackson: Gerald Olin the manager of the Dolphin hotel trying to protect Mike from entering the room with all kinds of bribes, he tells the full history of the room but unfortunately lets him stay in the room. Good supporting performance from Jackson rarely seen, he is the dominant persona you would expect to see. (8/10)
sam
Director Review: Mikael Hafstrom – Creates some very good scares and keeps you guessing on what is going on, add in what I think is the better ending you get a very good piece of direction. (8/10)
Horror: Has some solid scares and some you really don’t see coming along with some nicely built up ones. (9/10)
Mystery: You are constantly wondering what is going on, but a lot is explained at the end. (9/10)
Thriller: Keeps you at the edge of your seat just wait to know what happens next. (9/10)
Settings: The hotel room feels very ordinary but once things starting to happen it turns into a nightmare, working very well for the genre. (9/10)
Special Effects: Strong special effects used throughout. (9/10)
Suggestion: If you are a fan of horror you will enjoy this, if you are a fan of Stephen King you will enjoy this otherwise this one isn’t really for you. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The vents scene.
Worst Part: The two different endings can confuse when talking about this film with others.
Scariest Scene: Vent scene.
Believability: I give this a one because there are people like Mike you investigate the paranormal, but what happens isn’t believable. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $131,998,242
Budget: $25 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the terrifying story by Stephen King
Overall: Good Atmospheric Horror
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/28/1408-2007/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Dead Don't Die (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
I'm a little sad to say that I spent real money on this film. It wasn't showing at my Cineworld and the chance of a second stage release with the summer holidays approaching was unlikely. Luckily one of my Showcase Cinemas had it on and I ventured out into the real world to see it.
I won't bother with an extended synopsis because honestly I don't know what the point would be... it's zombies, everyone is trying to stay alive, literally nothing else is really happening in the story.
Up until this point I never really understood people using the word "meta" (unless it was DC related), I get it now. Officer Peterson, played by Adam Driver, is so meta that there actually may not be any more to go around.
The cast felt like it was just quirky enough to work together, especially as this wasn't going to be a traditional zombie movie. Looking back at the actors now I'm wondering if I might have enjoyed this movie more if it had unknown actors in it. I don't think it would have risen much higher in the rankings but I would have been less annoyed by some of the happenings.
Bill Murray plays Chief Robertson, a man who is seemingly always slightly confused by everything and also never becomes more than mildly alarmed by what's going on. The character and the performance were both rather boring. Murray came alive about as much as any of the zombies did.
The same can be said for Adam Driver, though I actually think that's par for the course with the way he acts rather than anything else. He always feels like mid-tier Keanu Reeves without the range. Once you realise that Peterson has the meta inside track it becomes a challenge to see anything he says in any other way. The script became rather frustrating because of this.
We're shown a very strange Tilda Swinton in the trailer and you have to wonder if the make-up direction was just "I want her to be the palest she's ever been and throw in a little "Ring" vibe for good measure." Zelda is probably the perfect zombie apocalypse companion, but she doesn't make for very dynamic viewing.
All of this negative feeling can be laid squarely at the script's door. It has little of interest to warrant a story at all, which is weird because there are elements that you think lead somewhere and then inexplicably don't. The ending is particularly bad and is what I've dubbed the "Stephen King ending". I won't expand on that here because it definitely constitutes spoilers if you haven't seen it.
There are some nice touches. The animal behaviour, the character of Mallory, and some of the effects on Selena Gomez. There's also some that left me questioning how they've portrayed zombies in this compared to other z-movies, but it's not in the trailer and while it's in my notes I'm wondering if I didn't just imagine the whole thing.
Those few little snippets can't save this movie. The poor script has several (that's me being generous) holes in it that just don't stand up when you look closely, and it's not good enough to give you anything else to look at apart from those holes. From its "maybe sciency things will cover the lack of reasoning" beginning to the "Stephen King ending" I was very disappointed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-dead-dont-die-movie-review.html
I won't bother with an extended synopsis because honestly I don't know what the point would be... it's zombies, everyone is trying to stay alive, literally nothing else is really happening in the story.
Up until this point I never really understood people using the word "meta" (unless it was DC related), I get it now. Officer Peterson, played by Adam Driver, is so meta that there actually may not be any more to go around.
The cast felt like it was just quirky enough to work together, especially as this wasn't going to be a traditional zombie movie. Looking back at the actors now I'm wondering if I might have enjoyed this movie more if it had unknown actors in it. I don't think it would have risen much higher in the rankings but I would have been less annoyed by some of the happenings.
Bill Murray plays Chief Robertson, a man who is seemingly always slightly confused by everything and also never becomes more than mildly alarmed by what's going on. The character and the performance were both rather boring. Murray came alive about as much as any of the zombies did.
The same can be said for Adam Driver, though I actually think that's par for the course with the way he acts rather than anything else. He always feels like mid-tier Keanu Reeves without the range. Once you realise that Peterson has the meta inside track it becomes a challenge to see anything he says in any other way. The script became rather frustrating because of this.
We're shown a very strange Tilda Swinton in the trailer and you have to wonder if the make-up direction was just "I want her to be the palest she's ever been and throw in a little "Ring" vibe for good measure." Zelda is probably the perfect zombie apocalypse companion, but she doesn't make for very dynamic viewing.
All of this negative feeling can be laid squarely at the script's door. It has little of interest to warrant a story at all, which is weird because there are elements that you think lead somewhere and then inexplicably don't. The ending is particularly bad and is what I've dubbed the "Stephen King ending". I won't expand on that here because it definitely constitutes spoilers if you haven't seen it.
There are some nice touches. The animal behaviour, the character of Mallory, and some of the effects on Selena Gomez. There's also some that left me questioning how they've portrayed zombies in this compared to other z-movies, but it's not in the trailer and while it's in my notes I'm wondering if I didn't just imagine the whole thing.
Those few little snippets can't save this movie. The poor script has several (that's me being generous) holes in it that just don't stand up when you look closely, and it's not good enough to give you anything else to look at apart from those holes. From its "maybe sciency things will cover the lack of reasoning" beginning to the "Stephen King ending" I was very disappointed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-dead-dont-die-movie-review.html