Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2019
A return to Room 237
***MINOR SPOILERS ONLY***
After the events which ruined his childhood at the Overlook Hotel, Dan Torrance has not had a profound life. He does drugs and has become addicted to alcohol. He decides to move to a small town where he tries to get his act together. He is still haunted by those events so long ago even seeing the ghost of long deceased Overlook cook Dick Hallorann who also possessed the ability to "shine". Dan always knew or assumed other in the world had the ability as well; however, had tried to lead a normal existence.
Meanwhile, a cult of soul swallowing degenerates emerges and preys on those who have the ability. Some not knowing their minor gifts are easy prey, but those who have remarkable abilities present more of a challenge. One of these such wunderkinds is 13 year old Abra Stone. Like Danny, she has had abilities all her life, her parents chose to ignore them, but now events are intensifying so profound she cannot ignore them. The cult leader, Rose The Hat, seeks out more victims for her flock to feed upon having an eventual confrontation with Abra.
***I don't want to say more so I don't ruin for anyone.***
I have decided when writing a review of a sequel of any kind, I will never refer to it as "unnecessary". I have read many recent critiques of movies like Zombieland: Double Tap or Maleficent: Mistress of Evil when this word is used and I don't agree with that as a criticism. People are only using that word if the sequel is a disappointment. Someone would never say The Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight were unnecessary because they were great films. Even mediocre sequels will get tagged with unnecessary and I guess I feel you should rate the film which was made on its own merits and not try to decide if it was worth making or not.
Much like the way 2010 tried to explain the monolith and the mystery from Kubrick's masterpiece and my favorite film of all time 2001: A Space Odyssey, Doctor Sleep explores and expands the "shining" universe and gives audiences another look into that world. I was reminded when watching for some reason the sequence in Ready Player One where the characters go back to the Overlook and interact with the unique setting and art direction the film possessed. The homages and settings in Doctor Sleep feel both modernized and a fond look back of what everyone loved from The Shining. I could tell writer/director Mike Flanagan loved this universe so intensely, he decided to adapt the Stephen King sequel novel and it is well done.
Most main characters from the original Shining film make an appearance here as well, most with smaller cameo type roles which I don't want to spoil here. The new characters of both Abra Stone and Rose The Hat are great additions and acting by Rebecca Ferguson (who is quickly becoming one of my faves) and young Kyliegh Curran really bring them to life. Other than the obvious Trainspotting, Ewan McGregor usually plays such happy and likable characters that it was interesting to see him in a darker light, especially at the beginning of the film.
The musical score felt much like The Shining at times (the best parts), but also foraged new ground and was truly haunting and beautiful throughout. The cinematography and art direction were beautiful when showing the dark forest and suburban landscapes as well as the recreation of some of the more familiar elements.
Doctor Sleep is the ceiling threshold of how good a sequel to a Kubrick classic iconic perfection piece of movie artwork onscreen. The feeling and fun of seeing new interpretations of classic characters was fine with me as the screenplay does them justice. Comparing it to The Shining is moot since Kubrick was the master and his films should be studied indefinitely by film students worldwide and Doctor Sleep is an admirable compliment to that.
I tried to find an instance where Kubrick made comment about the film 2010, but I could not other than he said he wished the director well with it. I would imagine he would have the same reaction here. I think he would feel his work stands on its own without need for further explanation or additional narrative, but that is not a criticism, just an observation.
After the events which ruined his childhood at the Overlook Hotel, Dan Torrance has not had a profound life. He does drugs and has become addicted to alcohol. He decides to move to a small town where he tries to get his act together. He is still haunted by those events so long ago even seeing the ghost of long deceased Overlook cook Dick Hallorann who also possessed the ability to "shine". Dan always knew or assumed other in the world had the ability as well; however, had tried to lead a normal existence.
Meanwhile, a cult of soul swallowing degenerates emerges and preys on those who have the ability. Some not knowing their minor gifts are easy prey, but those who have remarkable abilities present more of a challenge. One of these such wunderkinds is 13 year old Abra Stone. Like Danny, she has had abilities all her life, her parents chose to ignore them, but now events are intensifying so profound she cannot ignore them. The cult leader, Rose The Hat, seeks out more victims for her flock to feed upon having an eventual confrontation with Abra.
***I don't want to say more so I don't ruin for anyone.***
I have decided when writing a review of a sequel of any kind, I will never refer to it as "unnecessary". I have read many recent critiques of movies like Zombieland: Double Tap or Maleficent: Mistress of Evil when this word is used and I don't agree with that as a criticism. People are only using that word if the sequel is a disappointment. Someone would never say The Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight were unnecessary because they were great films. Even mediocre sequels will get tagged with unnecessary and I guess I feel you should rate the film which was made on its own merits and not try to decide if it was worth making or not.
Much like the way 2010 tried to explain the monolith and the mystery from Kubrick's masterpiece and my favorite film of all time 2001: A Space Odyssey, Doctor Sleep explores and expands the "shining" universe and gives audiences another look into that world. I was reminded when watching for some reason the sequence in Ready Player One where the characters go back to the Overlook and interact with the unique setting and art direction the film possessed. The homages and settings in Doctor Sleep feel both modernized and a fond look back of what everyone loved from The Shining. I could tell writer/director Mike Flanagan loved this universe so intensely, he decided to adapt the Stephen King sequel novel and it is well done.
Most main characters from the original Shining film make an appearance here as well, most with smaller cameo type roles which I don't want to spoil here. The new characters of both Abra Stone and Rose The Hat are great additions and acting by Rebecca Ferguson (who is quickly becoming one of my faves) and young Kyliegh Curran really bring them to life. Other than the obvious Trainspotting, Ewan McGregor usually plays such happy and likable characters that it was interesting to see him in a darker light, especially at the beginning of the film.
The musical score felt much like The Shining at times (the best parts), but also foraged new ground and was truly haunting and beautiful throughout. The cinematography and art direction were beautiful when showing the dark forest and suburban landscapes as well as the recreation of some of the more familiar elements.
Doctor Sleep is the ceiling threshold of how good a sequel to a Kubrick classic iconic perfection piece of movie artwork onscreen. The feeling and fun of seeing new interpretations of classic characters was fine with me as the screenplay does them justice. Comparing it to The Shining is moot since Kubrick was the master and his films should be studied indefinitely by film students worldwide and Doctor Sleep is an admirable compliment to that.
I tried to find an instance where Kubrick made comment about the film 2010, but I could not other than he said he wished the director well with it. I would imagine he would have the same reaction here. I think he would feel his work stands on its own without need for further explanation or additional narrative, but that is not a criticism, just an observation.
Henry Rollins recommended Apocalypse Now (1979) in Movies (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 15, 2021
Much like the recent Justice League redo we have Suicide Squad... sorry, The Suicide Squad.
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Loose Change (2009) in Movies
Feb 21, 2019
The fact that it was originally made conceived by a few students who did all of their research themselves and took the initiative to spread the word about what they learned is admirable and impressive. (1 more)
The soundtrack by DJ Skooly is full of bangers which really helps to boost the motivation of the film.
The Greatest Trickest That The Devil Ever Pulled, Was Convincing The World That He Didn't Exist
This is a fairly odd one to review. There are several different iterations of this film, of which I have seen 3 out of a total 6. This review will be based on the 3 versions that I have seen; Loose Change: Final Cut (2007), Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2009) and Loose Change 2nd Edition: HD (2017).
There is also the debate whether to review the films based on how smooth and professional looking the films are presentation-wise, or whether to give merit purely on how important and essential the information is that is being shared through these documentaries.
Then there is the fact that most folk who don't believe that the, '9/11 was an inside job,' conspiracy holds any water, will probably dismiss these films right from the offset. Whereas most, '9/11 truthers,' will probably defend this film's technical shortcomings because it supports their own previous beliefs.
In my opinion, the best way to look at this film is as an introduction to the concept that the public weren't given the full truth in the fallout of 9/11 and go from there. Do your own research and try to separate the facts from the conjecture before making a decision for yourself and forming your own opinion.
My personal stance on 9/11 is somewhere in-between the two extremes of either camp. I think that the theories of the buildings being vaporized by energy weapons, or the idea of there not being any actual planes flown into the buildings that day is ridiculous and I feel that outlandish theories like that actually detract and are harmful to those trying to instigate another investigation into what went on that day. However, I do think that it is pretty irrefutable that the US Government did lie to their people and covered up a good amount of what went on around the event and there are so many huge discrepancies and inconsistencies in the official commission report that even the most sceptical patriots can't say that the Government have disclosed the entire truth.
If you are someone that isn't too well-versed on why there are so many people out there that don't believe the official story of 9/11, then this is a good place to start. As with all documentaries, don't take the filmmakers entirely at their word and do your own research to make up your own mind, but this is an impressive film. I have a great admiration for the guerrilla attitude of the filmmakers and the get-up-and-go mentality present in the filmmaking is great. Unfortunately, it does lack a level of polish that we are used to seeing in many modern day documentaries produced by streaming giants like Netflix. However, this doesn't tarnish the information that is being presented by the filmmakers and isn't a reason to ignore anything that is being said here.
There is also the debate whether to review the films based on how smooth and professional looking the films are presentation-wise, or whether to give merit purely on how important and essential the information is that is being shared through these documentaries.
Then there is the fact that most folk who don't believe that the, '9/11 was an inside job,' conspiracy holds any water, will probably dismiss these films right from the offset. Whereas most, '9/11 truthers,' will probably defend this film's technical shortcomings because it supports their own previous beliefs.
In my opinion, the best way to look at this film is as an introduction to the concept that the public weren't given the full truth in the fallout of 9/11 and go from there. Do your own research and try to separate the facts from the conjecture before making a decision for yourself and forming your own opinion.
My personal stance on 9/11 is somewhere in-between the two extremes of either camp. I think that the theories of the buildings being vaporized by energy weapons, or the idea of there not being any actual planes flown into the buildings that day is ridiculous and I feel that outlandish theories like that actually detract and are harmful to those trying to instigate another investigation into what went on that day. However, I do think that it is pretty irrefutable that the US Government did lie to their people and covered up a good amount of what went on around the event and there are so many huge discrepancies and inconsistencies in the official commission report that even the most sceptical patriots can't say that the Government have disclosed the entire truth.
If you are someone that isn't too well-versed on why there are so many people out there that don't believe the official story of 9/11, then this is a good place to start. As with all documentaries, don't take the filmmakers entirely at their word and do your own research to make up your own mind, but this is an impressive film. I have a great admiration for the guerrilla attitude of the filmmakers and the get-up-and-go mentality present in the filmmaking is great. Unfortunately, it does lack a level of polish that we are used to seeing in many modern day documentaries produced by streaming giants like Netflix. However, this doesn't tarnish the information that is being presented by the filmmakers and isn't a reason to ignore anything that is being said here.
Debbiereadsbook (1487 KP) rated Retribution (The Protectors #3) in Books
Apr 15, 2019
My fav of the three so far!
*verified Audible purchase June 2017*
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Follow You in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Initially, I really hated the title of this book, it sounds super cheesy and weird, but after finding out it relates to the Twitter Killer plot, I actually thought it was quite cool. The plotline here is that there was Twitter thread called '#BeMyKiller' where you could advertise yourself up to be killed (in a pranky way) but then a few people who responded to this thread were murdered. I thought this was a really unique motivation for the crimes in this and so my hatred for the title dissipated.
This is a fast paced book, with never a dull moment! If you're one of those people who pushes themselves through "just one more chapter", this book is going to stop you from sleeping... There are 130 chapters in this book, with some of them being just a page long!
I liked the plot for this, that they were making a film about the murders, that then turned into more murders. The setting was in the dark and dreary murder place of Meredith, "Fun Central" and because it was an old kids play area, with ball bits and go-kart tracks, it had an eerie feel to it that worked well alongside the gruesome murders. And yes, they were gruesome murders.
Writing was well done. It's not a challenging book to read, there's no amazing descriptive passages or hard-hitting themes, it's just an easy thriller read. One problem I did have with the writing is something so stupid and very specific that it almost seems pointless in saying it, but it got on my nerves enough times that I have to mention it. "So why did you use the #BeMyKiller hashtag?" - how do you read that sentence? I read it as "hashtag Be My Killer hashtag"... yes that's all that's annoyed me, the double use of the hashtag... don't use a # if you're then going to write out hashtag!!!
Our main character in this novel is Hazel, and while she's creating this film to get justice for Meredith's killer, I didn't particularly like her. The blurb makes it sound like Hazel is doing her documentary to get justice for Meredith, but to me, it felt like she was making the film to save her company from going under. She was too deceptive with all the characters about her reasoning behind creating this new film, that her passion to catch the killer felt fake. As for Meredith being a "childhood friend", I'd say that wasn't very realistic, the book makes it feel like they were more acquaintances than anything, and that Hazel just sort of pitied Meredith. It's never good when you don't like the main character, but I was reasonably happy still going along with this novel. Hazel was dislikable but she was tolerable.
I had my suspicions of who the killer might be, which turned out to be wrong, but I think I would have preferred my scenario to play out because the real reveal was pretty dramatic and out there. Although the last 40% of the book was super tense and horror-movie-like it got a little OTT in my opinion.
Overall this is a great thriller if you're looking for a book with non-stop action, but it's not particularly clever and it's very dark, so if you're not into that kinda thing, you won't enjoy this one. It's clear that Parker has a talent for writing and I will definitely look out for more books of his, but this, for me, was a very mediocre thriller novel.
This is a fast paced book, with never a dull moment! If you're one of those people who pushes themselves through "just one more chapter", this book is going to stop you from sleeping... There are 130 chapters in this book, with some of them being just a page long!
I liked the plot for this, that they were making a film about the murders, that then turned into more murders. The setting was in the dark and dreary murder place of Meredith, "Fun Central" and because it was an old kids play area, with ball bits and go-kart tracks, it had an eerie feel to it that worked well alongside the gruesome murders. And yes, they were gruesome murders.
Writing was well done. It's not a challenging book to read, there's no amazing descriptive passages or hard-hitting themes, it's just an easy thriller read. One problem I did have with the writing is something so stupid and very specific that it almost seems pointless in saying it, but it got on my nerves enough times that I have to mention it. "So why did you use the #BeMyKiller hashtag?" - how do you read that sentence? I read it as "hashtag Be My Killer hashtag"... yes that's all that's annoyed me, the double use of the hashtag... don't use a # if you're then going to write out hashtag!!!
Our main character in this novel is Hazel, and while she's creating this film to get justice for Meredith's killer, I didn't particularly like her. The blurb makes it sound like Hazel is doing her documentary to get justice for Meredith, but to me, it felt like she was making the film to save her company from going under. She was too deceptive with all the characters about her reasoning behind creating this new film, that her passion to catch the killer felt fake. As for Meredith being a "childhood friend", I'd say that wasn't very realistic, the book makes it feel like they were more acquaintances than anything, and that Hazel just sort of pitied Meredith. It's never good when you don't like the main character, but I was reasonably happy still going along with this novel. Hazel was dislikable but she was tolerable.
I had my suspicions of who the killer might be, which turned out to be wrong, but I think I would have preferred my scenario to play out because the real reveal was pretty dramatic and out there. Although the last 40% of the book was super tense and horror-movie-like it got a little OTT in my opinion.
Overall this is a great thriller if you're looking for a book with non-stop action, but it's not particularly clever and it's very dark, so if you're not into that kinda thing, you won't enjoy this one. It's clear that Parker has a talent for writing and I will definitely look out for more books of his, but this, for me, was a very mediocre thriller novel.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Florida Project (2017) in Movies
Feb 18, 2018
Not Strong Enough To Keep My Attention
THE FLORIDA PROJECT is one of those "slice of life" films, shot on a low budget that doesn't really have a plot but exposes the audience to 2 hours of what it would be like to live the life of someone - usually a disaffected fringe group. There is no real plot, so the film needs to hang itself onto how interesting the characters - and the situation they find themselves - are.
These types of films are not usually my cup of tea, and this film was no exception.
THE FLORIDA PROJECT, conceived, written and directed by Sean Baker (who did a similar-type of film about the transgender community, TANGERINE), is about the community of people living just at the poverty line in the shadow of Walt Disney World. These people are constantly scrambling to earn money to eat and live and to pay rent at one of the seedy, rundown motels boarding just outside "the happiest place on earth".
We see this world through the eyes of Moonee - a "precocious" (I would say farel) youth who lives at one of these hotels with her mother, Halley. Moonee runs wild all day, doing whatever she wants and just 'living her life" while her mother hustles to make ends meet - all under the watchful eye of the motel's Manager, Bobby.
There is no real plot to this film. We just follow Moonee and her pals Scooty, Dicky and Jancey as they go about their day getting into misadventures. 6 year old Brooklyn Prince (in her film debut) stars as Moonee and she is an engaging enough presence, but not nearly strong enough to keep my attention for the entire 2 hours of the film - and that's the issue with this film. It relies heavily on the audience's fascination with this 6 year old and I wasn't fascinated enough to watch her for 2 hours.
Much more interesting to me to watch was another new actress, Bria Vinaite as her mother, Halley. I said she spends the film hustling - and I mean that in every sense of the word. Every interaction with another person is laced with the thought "what can I get out of this". She is always working an angle, looking for the quick score. She was a fascinating character, and I would have preferred that she would be the focus of this story.
Overseeing these two - and the other denizen's of his Motel - is Willem DaFoe playing against type as the kindly, caring Manager, Bobby. DaFoe is nominated for an Oscar for his work in this film - and it is strong work (it's good to see DaFoe with something to sink his teeth into), but is it enough for an Oscar? I don't think so. Much like Mary J. Blige in MUDBOUND, I think it is a very good performance, but I kept waiting for the "Academy Award" scene from him, and it just didn't come.
Ultimately, a labor of love for Sean Baker. It looks like a film that was made on a shoestring budget - and I'm sure that was intentional. The look and feel of this film mimics the circumstance that the characters find themselves in - including some "guerilla" filmmaking at Disney's Magic Kingdom itself. He made the type of film he wanted to make.
It just isn't the kind of film I wanted - or am interested - in seeing.
Letter Grade: C+
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
These types of films are not usually my cup of tea, and this film was no exception.
THE FLORIDA PROJECT, conceived, written and directed by Sean Baker (who did a similar-type of film about the transgender community, TANGERINE), is about the community of people living just at the poverty line in the shadow of Walt Disney World. These people are constantly scrambling to earn money to eat and live and to pay rent at one of the seedy, rundown motels boarding just outside "the happiest place on earth".
We see this world through the eyes of Moonee - a "precocious" (I would say farel) youth who lives at one of these hotels with her mother, Halley. Moonee runs wild all day, doing whatever she wants and just 'living her life" while her mother hustles to make ends meet - all under the watchful eye of the motel's Manager, Bobby.
There is no real plot to this film. We just follow Moonee and her pals Scooty, Dicky and Jancey as they go about their day getting into misadventures. 6 year old Brooklyn Prince (in her film debut) stars as Moonee and she is an engaging enough presence, but not nearly strong enough to keep my attention for the entire 2 hours of the film - and that's the issue with this film. It relies heavily on the audience's fascination with this 6 year old and I wasn't fascinated enough to watch her for 2 hours.
Much more interesting to me to watch was another new actress, Bria Vinaite as her mother, Halley. I said she spends the film hustling - and I mean that in every sense of the word. Every interaction with another person is laced with the thought "what can I get out of this". She is always working an angle, looking for the quick score. She was a fascinating character, and I would have preferred that she would be the focus of this story.
Overseeing these two - and the other denizen's of his Motel - is Willem DaFoe playing against type as the kindly, caring Manager, Bobby. DaFoe is nominated for an Oscar for his work in this film - and it is strong work (it's good to see DaFoe with something to sink his teeth into), but is it enough for an Oscar? I don't think so. Much like Mary J. Blige in MUDBOUND, I think it is a very good performance, but I kept waiting for the "Academy Award" scene from him, and it just didn't come.
Ultimately, a labor of love for Sean Baker. It looks like a film that was made on a shoestring budget - and I'm sure that was intentional. The look and feel of this film mimics the circumstance that the characters find themselves in - including some "guerilla" filmmaking at Disney's Magic Kingdom itself. He made the type of film he wanted to make.
It just isn't the kind of film I wanted - or am interested - in seeing.
Letter Grade: C+
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Thirteen Reasons Why in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a> at the end of November).
I came across this book on Amazon when I was adding books to my wishlist, and I thought it sounded interesting. I also had quite a few credits on Audible to use, so I thought I'd use one to purchase this book. I wasn't disappointed.
The title had me intrigued. It made me want to read the blurb.
I'm not really a big fan of the cover if I'm honest although I don't know what I'd like to see on the cover. Maybe I'd put Clay on the cover as well. I'm not really sure.
I enjoyed the world building. I find it hard to believe that no one would follow the instructions left on the tapes that Hannah made, but I suppose it could happen. The world building fits with what high school was like, at least when I was a teenager.
I found the pacing to be done well. I couldn't wait to find out what was going to happen on the next tape. There were only a few times where the pacing slowed a bit, but it didn't stay slow for very long.
The plot is an interesting one. Hannah make a cassette tape for each of the thirteen people that she felt contributed to her committing suicide. Clay is trying to think of all the times he was around Hannah and wondering why he'd be on the tapes. It was interesting to find out the way certain people contributed to Hannah's depression. I also think the plot sends a great message about how we shouldn't judge anyone because we don't know what that person has gone through or is going through.
I think the characters were written fairly well. At first, I felt a bad for Hannah. However, as time went on, I felt that Hannah became too selfish, not because of her suicide, but just by what she said on the tapes. Clay came across as a nice guy (and Hannah even said he was), but I just would've liked to know more about him.
The dialogue worked for a young adult book. The characters actually sounded their age and not like an adult trying to write YA characters. The dialogue flows freely and smoothly as well. Being that this is a book about a girl's suicide, the dialogue does mention that as well as rape and another sexual situation. There is a few swear words, but the swearing is only mild.
Usually, the narrator's of audiobooks tend to annoy me, but Debra Wiseman and Joel Johnstone did an excellent job. Debra Wiseman really brings the character of Hannah alive, and Joel Johnstone does the same for Clay. I think they both portrayed emotions really well. However, I had imagined Clay to sound a bit different. Johnstone's voice sounded just a tad bit too old for Clay's age in my opinion. Other then that, Wiseman and Johnstone were superb!
Overall, Thirteen Reasons Why is a very different but interesting book. I felt that even though it deals with suicide, it does send out a positive message.
Due to the major theme and some sexual scenes, I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who want to read something realistic.
I came across this book on Amazon when I was adding books to my wishlist, and I thought it sounded interesting. I also had quite a few credits on Audible to use, so I thought I'd use one to purchase this book. I wasn't disappointed.
The title had me intrigued. It made me want to read the blurb.
I'm not really a big fan of the cover if I'm honest although I don't know what I'd like to see on the cover. Maybe I'd put Clay on the cover as well. I'm not really sure.
I enjoyed the world building. I find it hard to believe that no one would follow the instructions left on the tapes that Hannah made, but I suppose it could happen. The world building fits with what high school was like, at least when I was a teenager.
I found the pacing to be done well. I couldn't wait to find out what was going to happen on the next tape. There were only a few times where the pacing slowed a bit, but it didn't stay slow for very long.
The plot is an interesting one. Hannah make a cassette tape for each of the thirteen people that she felt contributed to her committing suicide. Clay is trying to think of all the times he was around Hannah and wondering why he'd be on the tapes. It was interesting to find out the way certain people contributed to Hannah's depression. I also think the plot sends a great message about how we shouldn't judge anyone because we don't know what that person has gone through or is going through.
I think the characters were written fairly well. At first, I felt a bad for Hannah. However, as time went on, I felt that Hannah became too selfish, not because of her suicide, but just by what she said on the tapes. Clay came across as a nice guy (and Hannah even said he was), but I just would've liked to know more about him.
The dialogue worked for a young adult book. The characters actually sounded their age and not like an adult trying to write YA characters. The dialogue flows freely and smoothly as well. Being that this is a book about a girl's suicide, the dialogue does mention that as well as rape and another sexual situation. There is a few swear words, but the swearing is only mild.
Usually, the narrator's of audiobooks tend to annoy me, but Debra Wiseman and Joel Johnstone did an excellent job. Debra Wiseman really brings the character of Hannah alive, and Joel Johnstone does the same for Clay. I think they both portrayed emotions really well. However, I had imagined Clay to sound a bit different. Johnstone's voice sounded just a tad bit too old for Clay's age in my opinion. Other then that, Wiseman and Johnstone were superb!
Overall, Thirteen Reasons Why is a very different but interesting book. I felt that even though it deals with suicide, it does send out a positive message.
Due to the major theme and some sexual scenes, I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who want to read something realistic.
Inky Books (3 KP) rated These Broken Stars (Starbound, #1) in Books
Jun 21, 2018
Well, I’m sure this might be a surprise for you because I have already reviewed this book. No, you’re not crazy, but after going back and rereading it I decided that I would listen to it again and write a real review, not one where more than half of it is a spoiler.
This book was just as amazing the second time as it was the first time. The characters were as fresh and complicated as I remember and I was even surprised by details I had forgotten about them.
Lilac was as privileged, stubborn and as not-crazy as I remember, but now I can appreciate it even more now that I have read the next two books in the series. Despite being a rich and spoiled debutant she certainly pushes through to her very core to survive, especially in the middle and at the end of the book.
And Tarver, he broke my heart. He was wonderfully written, from the beginning, to the interludes where he is being debriefed (where he was so sarcastic I couldn’t help but appreciate his nerve), and then those events at the end. You’ll know what I mean when you read the book.
The main plot is so beautifully simple and can be summed up into one, single word. Survive. There is a larger story arch for the next two books of the series, but just surviving, that’s what this book is about. Well, that and Lilac and Tarver trying not to kill each other while also trying to get the other to stay alive long enough to reach their goal.
Now, this book is almost entirely starring just Lilac and Tarver. Usually, only two characters together, alone would have caused me to whine about how the author was unimaginative but this works really, really well. Yes, I want other people there because the are stranded on an abandoned planet and I don’t want them to suffer, but their dynamic would have been completely ruined if there was someone else there.
Yes, this is considered a romance book, and it didn’t seem at all out of place. It fell in quite easily and it wasn’t a sudden thing forced upon two people who hated each other from the very start. If anything, these two pushed their feelings aside as the tragic accident pulls them closer together without them even knowing it. I think I lived for the moment these two finally accepted each other and I would not have had it any other way. It all just works so well!
So much goes on, yet so little happens. I mean this in the most amazing way possible. There is no one else to interfere with Lilac and Tarver’s mission of surviving, or working towards a goal other than nature and themselves. And when they get to one of the destinations, and what happens to both of them, well, it was hard. But the next place, it is so much harder. They are so sweet and it just breaks my heart.
I knew what was coming, knew what had to happen for the story to move on, and still, it rocked me and almost brought me to tears again. I knew how this book, and the series, ended, but still I couldn’t help the emotions that refused to stay pushed down. I don’t even have words to explain it in a way that will do it justice and not spoil it at the same time. Please, just read it!
This book was just as amazing the second time as it was the first time. The characters were as fresh and complicated as I remember and I was even surprised by details I had forgotten about them.
Lilac was as privileged, stubborn and as not-crazy as I remember, but now I can appreciate it even more now that I have read the next two books in the series. Despite being a rich and spoiled debutant she certainly pushes through to her very core to survive, especially in the middle and at the end of the book.
And Tarver, he broke my heart. He was wonderfully written, from the beginning, to the interludes where he is being debriefed (where he was so sarcastic I couldn’t help but appreciate his nerve), and then those events at the end. You’ll know what I mean when you read the book.
The main plot is so beautifully simple and can be summed up into one, single word. Survive. There is a larger story arch for the next two books of the series, but just surviving, that’s what this book is about. Well, that and Lilac and Tarver trying not to kill each other while also trying to get the other to stay alive long enough to reach their goal.
Now, this book is almost entirely starring just Lilac and Tarver. Usually, only two characters together, alone would have caused me to whine about how the author was unimaginative but this works really, really well. Yes, I want other people there because the are stranded on an abandoned planet and I don’t want them to suffer, but their dynamic would have been completely ruined if there was someone else there.
Yes, this is considered a romance book, and it didn’t seem at all out of place. It fell in quite easily and it wasn’t a sudden thing forced upon two people who hated each other from the very start. If anything, these two pushed their feelings aside as the tragic accident pulls them closer together without them even knowing it. I think I lived for the moment these two finally accepted each other and I would not have had it any other way. It all just works so well!
So much goes on, yet so little happens. I mean this in the most amazing way possible. There is no one else to interfere with Lilac and Tarver’s mission of surviving, or working towards a goal other than nature and themselves. And when they get to one of the destinations, and what happens to both of them, well, it was hard. But the next place, it is so much harder. They are so sweet and it just breaks my heart.
I knew what was coming, knew what had to happen for the story to move on, and still, it rocked me and almost brought me to tears again. I knew how this book, and the series, ended, but still I couldn’t help the emotions that refused to stay pushed down. I don’t even have words to explain it in a way that will do it justice and not spoil it at the same time. Please, just read it!