Search
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated You in Books
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Unique (3 more)
Well thought out
Fast paced
Creepy
Sometimes loses focus (1 more)
Character feels inconsistant
Unique, interesting and stands on it's own
As a book nerd, and fan of crime podcasts and shows, I had to read this book after loving the show version of it.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
May 30, 2019 (Updated May 30, 2019)
Japan's biggest movie star returns to the screen in a solid, entertaining sequel (and I'm not talking about Ken Watanabe). Eco-terrorists steal a new gadget that allows people to communicate with and control giant monsters, intending to use it to save the environment by getting the world's monsters to destroy industrial civilisation: possibly not the most thought-through plan in history, but it has originality on its side.
I am not the best person to be objective about a new Godzilla movie, but I had a good time with this film. Even so, it does have obvious flaws: Kyle Chandler is kind of useless as the supposed protagonist, and the story does have a very 1990s vibe to it which I expect some people may have an issue with. However, the tone of the film is just about perfect: the Toho monsters look and behave exactly as you'd hope, and the film incorporates lots of little details from the original movies, most obviously the classic musical themes for Godzilla and Mothra. If you like Japanese monster movies, I think you will enjoy this movie a lot - if not, well, it's about a dinosaur, a dragon, a moth and a pterodactyl doing all-in wrestling together; whether you think that is an outrageously cool idea or unbelievably stupid is a matter of personal taste, but the movie itself is unlikely to change your opinion. Bring on the big ape!
I am not the best person to be objective about a new Godzilla movie, but I had a good time with this film. Even so, it does have obvious flaws: Kyle Chandler is kind of useless as the supposed protagonist, and the story does have a very 1990s vibe to it which I expect some people may have an issue with. However, the tone of the film is just about perfect: the Toho monsters look and behave exactly as you'd hope, and the film incorporates lots of little details from the original movies, most obviously the classic musical themes for Godzilla and Mothra. If you like Japanese monster movies, I think you will enjoy this movie a lot - if not, well, it's about a dinosaur, a dragon, a moth and a pterodactyl doing all-in wrestling together; whether you think that is an outrageously cool idea or unbelievably stupid is a matter of personal taste, but the movie itself is unlikely to change your opinion. Bring on the big ape!
Cat and Mouse (Alex Cross, #4)
8.4
Rate It
Book
Alex Cross is back-and so is a raging and suicidal Gary Soneji. Out of prison and dying from the...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Somewhat misleading but thrilling nonetheless
It’s best to start off this review as honest as possible. If you’re expecting a fully-fledged sequel or even a prequel to Matt Reeves’ brilliant monster horror, Cloverfield in 10 Cloverfield Lane, you’ll be very disappointed.
But, if you’re expecting a superbly written, well-acted and claustrophobic thriller, then this is definitely the film for you. Dan Trachtenberg, who makes his directorial debut with this feature, has crafted a taut film that has no real connection with the 2008 hit. So is it as good?
10 Cloverfield Lane follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as she embarks on a new chapter in her life after a break-up. Unfortunately, a car crash leaves her seriously injured and unconscious. After waking up in an underground bunker, she meets her saviour in Howard (John Goodman), and as the story progresses, Michelle and fellow resident Emmett, try to make a bid for freedom.
The performances by the cast of three are terrific with Winstead coming on leaps and bounds since her role in Final Destination 3 and John Goodman is absolutely incredible. Cloverfield utilised its monster very well, but Goodman is more than a match with a simple shaking of his fists – his booming voice and burly frame mean he was a perfect casting choice and a human as psychotic as Howard is infinitely more terrifying to me than any monster.
It’s all very Hitchcockian, claustrophobic and exceptionally tense. Director Dan Trachtenberg has a real eye for the smaller details and the underground bunker setting is the perfect location to craft this kind of film. The use of jagged camera angles and low shots help aid the enclosed feeling and you can’t help but become panicked with Michelle, as she desperately tries to figure out a way to freedom.
After the bloated mess of London Has Fallen and the overlong Allegiant, it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t dwell more than it needs to. At 103 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane is relatively short and all the better for it. Despite only having three characters and being confined to a few small rooms for the majority of the running time, it never drags or becomes dull.
Unfortunately, the final third unravels a little of this good work, coming across like the ending to a completely different film; but Trachtenberg’s ideas and reasoning behind the finale are clear throughout, despite the lack of connection to the two acts that preceded it.
Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a smart and well-thought out thriller that is related to Cloverfield in name only. That’s no bad thing, as the film we are left with is one of the best directorial debuts in years, even though its muddled ending leaves somewhat of a sour taste.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/20/somewhat-misleading-but-thrilling-nonetheless-10-cloverfield-lane-review/
But, if you’re expecting a superbly written, well-acted and claustrophobic thriller, then this is definitely the film for you. Dan Trachtenberg, who makes his directorial debut with this feature, has crafted a taut film that has no real connection with the 2008 hit. So is it as good?
10 Cloverfield Lane follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as she embarks on a new chapter in her life after a break-up. Unfortunately, a car crash leaves her seriously injured and unconscious. After waking up in an underground bunker, she meets her saviour in Howard (John Goodman), and as the story progresses, Michelle and fellow resident Emmett, try to make a bid for freedom.
The performances by the cast of three are terrific with Winstead coming on leaps and bounds since her role in Final Destination 3 and John Goodman is absolutely incredible. Cloverfield utilised its monster very well, but Goodman is more than a match with a simple shaking of his fists – his booming voice and burly frame mean he was a perfect casting choice and a human as psychotic as Howard is infinitely more terrifying to me than any monster.
It’s all very Hitchcockian, claustrophobic and exceptionally tense. Director Dan Trachtenberg has a real eye for the smaller details and the underground bunker setting is the perfect location to craft this kind of film. The use of jagged camera angles and low shots help aid the enclosed feeling and you can’t help but become panicked with Michelle, as she desperately tries to figure out a way to freedom.
After the bloated mess of London Has Fallen and the overlong Allegiant, it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t dwell more than it needs to. At 103 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane is relatively short and all the better for it. Despite only having three characters and being confined to a few small rooms for the majority of the running time, it never drags or becomes dull.
Unfortunately, the final third unravels a little of this good work, coming across like the ending to a completely different film; but Trachtenberg’s ideas and reasoning behind the finale are clear throughout, despite the lack of connection to the two acts that preceded it.
Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a smart and well-thought out thriller that is related to Cloverfield in name only. That’s no bad thing, as the film we are left with is one of the best directorial debuts in years, even though its muddled ending leaves somewhat of a sour taste.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/20/somewhat-misleading-but-thrilling-nonetheless-10-cloverfield-lane-review/
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Veiled ( Releasing the Magic 4) in Books
Sep 21, 2023
134 of 235
Kindle
Veiled ( Releasing the Magic 4)
By Maya Riley
⭐️⭐️⭐️
What do you do when your past takes you back?
The years I’d spent growing up were the darkest of my life, even with counting the rotter outbreak. Then I gained my freedom, met some guys who refused to leave, and even got some of my siblings back. Then my past came for me.
Now I spend my days watching, biding my time, waiting for my chance to escape while also trying to keep my sanity. During this time, I’m forced to endure their experiments. Some will test me, and some could possibly break me. What I learn, though, could change everything I thought I’d ever known to be true. I will fight my way out for my freedom.
I did it before, I can do it again.
Nobody will knock me down for good.
Not even the monster in the pearl necklace.
I really like this series it’s a different twist on a zombie apocalypse mixing it with a bit of magic. It’s a light fun read with a bit of a reverse harem going on. This was a little rushed in parts but still enjoyable for a quick read.
Kindle
Veiled ( Releasing the Magic 4)
By Maya Riley
⭐️⭐️⭐️
What do you do when your past takes you back?
The years I’d spent growing up were the darkest of my life, even with counting the rotter outbreak. Then I gained my freedom, met some guys who refused to leave, and even got some of my siblings back. Then my past came for me.
Now I spend my days watching, biding my time, waiting for my chance to escape while also trying to keep my sanity. During this time, I’m forced to endure their experiments. Some will test me, and some could possibly break me. What I learn, though, could change everything I thought I’d ever known to be true. I will fight my way out for my freedom.
I did it before, I can do it again.
Nobody will knock me down for good.
Not even the monster in the pearl necklace.
I really like this series it’s a different twist on a zombie apocalypse mixing it with a bit of magic. It’s a light fun read with a bit of a reverse harem going on. This was a little rushed in parts but still enjoyable for a quick read.
Merissa (13792 KP) rated Matching with Monsters (The Red Agency #1) in Books
Dec 1, 2023 (Updated Dec 1, 2023)
MATCHING WITH MONSTERS is the first book in The Red Agency series and we start with Ari, a mid-twenties young woman who has just quit her job. Life has not taken the path she envisaged but she has the support of two best friends, Cami and Lyssa. When she gets an interview at The Red Agency, she presumes it's for a job, but it turns out to be so much more.
I thoroughly enjoyed this story and it practically read itself! I loved Ari's open-mindedness (after the initial shock that, let's face it, would shake anyone up!) I loved how she loved her monsters no matter which face they wore. And I loved how each of them was different, with their own personalities and baggage. It was easy to see from the first word which one was speaking.
I thought Cami's boss might be one, but how that all came together was better than I had imagined. I am looking forward to both her and Lyssa's stories. Absolutely recommended for any who like Why Choose Monster Romance!
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Nov 30, 2023
I thoroughly enjoyed this story and it practically read itself! I loved Ari's open-mindedness (after the initial shock that, let's face it, would shake anyone up!) I loved how she loved her monsters no matter which face they wore. And I loved how each of them was different, with their own personalities and baggage. It was easy to see from the first word which one was speaking.
I thought Cami's boss might be one, but how that all came together was better than I had imagined. I am looking forward to both her and Lyssa's stories. Absolutely recommended for any who like Why Choose Monster Romance!
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Nov 30, 2023
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated Frankenstein in Books
Aug 9, 2019
The plot and major themes. (1 more)
Further work it inspired.
Readable, but disjointed and repetitive in parts.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fundamentally, the problem with this book is the narrator, Victor. He is thoroughly detestable. A selfish, cowardly, irresponsible, excuse ridden, narcissistic d****e-bag of the highest order. And unfortunately, it is Victor Frankenstein’s POV that we are forced into for the majority of the novel.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
Fire and Cinder (Fairy Tales of the Magicorum #7)
Book
Meet the Magicorum: modern folks who are supernaturally locked into fairy tale life templates. For...
Young Adult Fantasy
Maddog (122 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
May 16, 2020
A must see, even if your not a superhero fan.
I'm a massive Joker fan - always have been ever since I was little, so this may be a little one sided.
So out of all the films he's been involved with this is Joker’s first stand alone movie which I was so excited for. Joker’s back story has of course been talked about for many years as most of his life is unknown and simply everyone is guessing. The film 'Joker' decides to go down the back story of mental health which many believe is the cause of his behaviour.
The film starts off very simple, so much so that you believe you could be watching any other film. You get little hints of the Joker’s mental health issues and how people see him (at one point I felt sorry for him because of everything happening in the movie). As the movie progresses your then thrown into the world and mindset of the Joker himself; you start to see more mental health issues and start to notice the Joker that everyone knows. As the film progresses towards to the end, it creates many moments that leave you questioning your own sanity as you start to wonder what the truth is.
Yes this film has it flaws; it wasn’t quite the stand alone I was hoping for as I thought maybe a lesser well known reason would have been chosen but still the film did well with its chosen plot.
Yes it has 'that song' but in reality I feel it actually helps with the story that's happening. Here's my take; I feel that the song is in fact a hidden message. The song was performed by someone many would call 'a monster' so in truth is this not fitting for Joker? I believe that the playing of this song is Joker showing the audience in only true Joker fashion that 'the monster' he has hidden for so long is finally free.
There are many things I could say about this film but I feel I'd be here forever. In truth, many people don't enjoy this film for whatever their reason, or only enjoy parts. However, I enjoyed all of the film and everything it stands for or represents. As I said at the beginning I'm a Joker fan so this may seem one sided. I will say this though no matter what you may think about the film it’s 100% worth a watch, we can all take something away from this film, even if it's just how well done the movie was made. put together and portrayed.
So out of all the films he's been involved with this is Joker’s first stand alone movie which I was so excited for. Joker’s back story has of course been talked about for many years as most of his life is unknown and simply everyone is guessing. The film 'Joker' decides to go down the back story of mental health which many believe is the cause of his behaviour.
The film starts off very simple, so much so that you believe you could be watching any other film. You get little hints of the Joker’s mental health issues and how people see him (at one point I felt sorry for him because of everything happening in the movie). As the movie progresses your then thrown into the world and mindset of the Joker himself; you start to see more mental health issues and start to notice the Joker that everyone knows. As the film progresses towards to the end, it creates many moments that leave you questioning your own sanity as you start to wonder what the truth is.
Yes this film has it flaws; it wasn’t quite the stand alone I was hoping for as I thought maybe a lesser well known reason would have been chosen but still the film did well with its chosen plot.
Yes it has 'that song' but in reality I feel it actually helps with the story that's happening. Here's my take; I feel that the song is in fact a hidden message. The song was performed by someone many would call 'a monster' so in truth is this not fitting for Joker? I believe that the playing of this song is Joker showing the audience in only true Joker fashion that 'the monster' he has hidden for so long is finally free.
There are many things I could say about this film but I feel I'd be here forever. In truth, many people don't enjoy this film for whatever their reason, or only enjoy parts. However, I enjoyed all of the film and everything it stands for or represents. As I said at the beginning I'm a Joker fan so this may seem one sided. I will say this though no matter what you may think about the film it’s 100% worth a watch, we can all take something away from this film, even if it's just how well done the movie was made. put together and portrayed.
Codex Born (Magic ex Libris: Book Two)
6.0
Rate It
Book
Isaac Vainio's life is just about perfect. He should know it can't last. Living and working as a...