Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Monster Hunter (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2022
Please, please, for the love of God please stop letting Paul WS Anderson adapt beloved video games into "films"
Nothing about Monster Hunter feels rewarding. The narrative is diabolically boring, the CGI is complete ass, the dialogue is dumb, and above all none of it is fun.
This 1 star is purely for a half decent final fight scene, Meowscles, and Ron Perlmans hilarouslty stupid wig.
Tony Jaa going from Ong Bak and Warrior King to shit like this and Jui Jitsu is heartbreaking
Nothing about Monster Hunter feels rewarding. The narrative is diabolically boring, the CGI is complete ass, the dialogue is dumb, and above all none of it is fun.
This 1 star is purely for a half decent final fight scene, Meowscles, and Ron Perlmans hilarouslty stupid wig.
Tony Jaa going from Ong Bak and Warrior King to shit like this and Jui Jitsu is heartbreaking
Kevin Phillipson (9943 KP) rated Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) in Movies
Sep 5, 2021
Simu liu (2 more)
Awkwfina
Tony leung
Watched today I knew enough about the character going into the film knew he was created in the 70s at the height of King fu movies and Bruce Lee in particular I'm glad I've seen the film it ticks all my boxes for action movies best scene got to be the bus fight the cheography on the fight superb. On to the acting simu liu was standout as shang - chi even awkwfina even her character could get annoying at times but she was still good but now on the villain played by Tony leung who steals the show as the sympathetic villain u know he was doing wrong but u see it from his point of he fought he was doing right. I won't give any spoilers but there is a surprise appease from someone u will know who I mean when u see it and no its not wong. overall good movie definitely needs a sequel.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) in Movies
Mar 23, 2020
Hellfire
The Hunchback of Notre Dame- is a strange movie, cause it came out after "The Lion King". And the movie's after "The Lion King" were stange. What im saying is after "The Lion King", disney decided to go really strange/a huge left turn/didn't expect that/disappointed and overall a huge downfall. But i will get to those movies. Oh this is one of them.
This movie has good songs like.."The Bells of Notre Dame", "Out There", "Topsy Turvy", "God Help The Outcast", "Heaven's Light/Hellfire" and "A Guy Like You".
The plot: An animated Disney adventure follows disfigured Quasimodo (Tom Hulce), the bell-ringer of Notre Dame Cathedral, who bides his time locked away in a tower. With only gargoyles to keep him company, Quasimodo longs to be with other people, leading to his chance encounter with the enchanting Gypsy Esmeralda (Demi Moore). When the beautiful young woman catches the attention of Quasimodo's guardian, sinister Frollo (Tony Jay), Quasimodo must help to keep her out of his clutches.
Intrest fact: The film is considered to be one of Disney's darkest animated films as its narrative explores such mature themes as infanticide, lust, damnation, genocide, and sin, despite the changes made from the original source material in order to ensure a G rating received by the MPAA.
Its a good movie.
This movie has good songs like.."The Bells of Notre Dame", "Out There", "Topsy Turvy", "God Help The Outcast", "Heaven's Light/Hellfire" and "A Guy Like You".
The plot: An animated Disney adventure follows disfigured Quasimodo (Tom Hulce), the bell-ringer of Notre Dame Cathedral, who bides his time locked away in a tower. With only gargoyles to keep him company, Quasimodo longs to be with other people, leading to his chance encounter with the enchanting Gypsy Esmeralda (Demi Moore). When the beautiful young woman catches the attention of Quasimodo's guardian, sinister Frollo (Tony Jay), Quasimodo must help to keep her out of his clutches.
Intrest fact: The film is considered to be one of Disney's darkest animated films as its narrative explores such mature themes as infanticide, lust, damnation, genocide, and sin, despite the changes made from the original source material in order to ensure a G rating received by the MPAA.
Its a good movie.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Tarzan (1999) in Movies
Mar 24, 2020
King Of The Jungle
Tarzan- I love this movie, this is one of my favorite animation films of all time. Its a classic.
The plot: In this Disney animated tale, the orphaned Tarzan (Tony Goldwyn) grows up in the remote African wilderness, raised by the gentle gorilla Kala (Glenn Close). When a British expedition enters the jungle, Tarzan encounters the beautiful Jane (Minnie Driver) and recognizes that, like her, he's human. Falling in love with Jane, Tarzan is torn between embracing civilization and staying with his gorilla family, which becomes threatened by the ruthless hunter Clayton (Brian Blessed).
Its a excellent and fantastic movie made by Disney before the 2000's. When the 2000's hit went on a downhill slop. But ill get to those movies.
The plot: In this Disney animated tale, the orphaned Tarzan (Tony Goldwyn) grows up in the remote African wilderness, raised by the gentle gorilla Kala (Glenn Close). When a British expedition enters the jungle, Tarzan encounters the beautiful Jane (Minnie Driver) and recognizes that, like her, he's human. Falling in love with Jane, Tarzan is torn between embracing civilization and staying with his gorilla family, which becomes threatened by the ruthless hunter Clayton (Brian Blessed).
Its a excellent and fantastic movie made by Disney before the 2000's. When the 2000's hit went on a downhill slop. But ill get to those movies.
Graham Massey recommended Flying Wonders by Homelife in Music (curated)
Paul Schneider recommended In the Mood for Love (2000) in Movies (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated King Richard (2021) in Movies
Nov 30, 2021
It's "Fine", but nothing special
The new bio-pic KING RICHARD, depicting the true life story of the unusual rise of the tennis playing Williams sisters, and the man who had the vision to get them there, was being billed as a film that just might have an Oscar nominated performance in it.
And this is true, but, that performance just might be Aunjanue Ellis’ performance as “Brandy” Williams (mother of Venus and Serena) and not Will Smith as the Central Character, Richard Williams.
Don’t get me wrong, Will Smith is very good in the title role of this film, filling “King Richard” Williams with swagger and a “I am not wrong” attitude throughout. The issue is that this character does not learn anything or grow during the film. He is cock-sure right at the start and he is cock-sure right at the end.
The surprise to me was Aunjanue Ellis as the put-upon wife, Brandy. Her character hangs in the background, supporting Richard and the girls until Richard pushes her buttons just one time too many and then she steps in. It is in these moments that this film crackles. Ellis has the “Oscar Speech” in this film and she fires some life into the 2 hour and 25 minute proceedings when it desperately needs it.
And that’s the problem, ultimately, with this film. The Direction by Reinaldo Marcus Green and the script by Zach Baylin is too reverential to the subject matter, shying away from the darkness and the tension that is creeping around the edges (which would have been interesting) to show us a pretty standard “if you stick to your guns, you’ll always be right” story that never really has any emotional resonance.
With the dominating (and domineering) performance of Smith, the performances of young actresses Saniyya Sidney (Venus) and Demi Singleton (Serena) are afterthoughts as are the Supporting Performances of Tony Goldwyn and Jon Bernthal as 2 tennis coaches that clash with Richard.
Ultimately, this is a “fine” film with some “fine” performances that will serve as a “fine” tribute to what the 2 Williams’ sisters have accomplished.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And this is true, but, that performance just might be Aunjanue Ellis’ performance as “Brandy” Williams (mother of Venus and Serena) and not Will Smith as the Central Character, Richard Williams.
Don’t get me wrong, Will Smith is very good in the title role of this film, filling “King Richard” Williams with swagger and a “I am not wrong” attitude throughout. The issue is that this character does not learn anything or grow during the film. He is cock-sure right at the start and he is cock-sure right at the end.
The surprise to me was Aunjanue Ellis as the put-upon wife, Brandy. Her character hangs in the background, supporting Richard and the girls until Richard pushes her buttons just one time too many and then she steps in. It is in these moments that this film crackles. Ellis has the “Oscar Speech” in this film and she fires some life into the 2 hour and 25 minute proceedings when it desperately needs it.
And that’s the problem, ultimately, with this film. The Direction by Reinaldo Marcus Green and the script by Zach Baylin is too reverential to the subject matter, shying away from the darkness and the tension that is creeping around the edges (which would have been interesting) to show us a pretty standard “if you stick to your guns, you’ll always be right” story that never really has any emotional resonance.
With the dominating (and domineering) performance of Smith, the performances of young actresses Saniyya Sidney (Venus) and Demi Singleton (Serena) are afterthoughts as are the Supporting Performances of Tony Goldwyn and Jon Bernthal as 2 tennis coaches that clash with Richard.
Ultimately, this is a “fine” film with some “fine” performances that will serve as a “fine” tribute to what the 2 Williams’ sisters have accomplished.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Mist (2007) in Movies
Nov 30, 2020
"It appears we may have a problem of some magnitude."
The Mist is flat out fantastic for a handful of reasons.
Firstly, it has a ridiculously good cast - Thomas Jane, Marcia Gay Harden, Andre Braugher, Tony Jones, Laurie Holden, Jeffrey DeMunn, William Sadler, Alexa Davalos, Sam Witwer...there isn't a weak link at all, and it's a damn good job - The Mist isn't a straight forward creature feature. Although it's does have it's fair share of monster moments, it's main focus is on the dangers of fanatacism, and the delusions of human beings, as a lot of regular Joes who are just scared of the events unfolding, start to blindly follow the words of Mrs. Carmody, someone who is truly unhinged, and truly believes what she preaches - it's a concept all too familiar in today's real world, and Marcia Gay Harden puts in a show stopping performance, and is one the easiest-to-hate horror antagonists ever put to screen.
The titular Mist is realised superbly, and also does a good job at hiding the CGI monsters effectively. What we do get shown is just enough for a decent payoff, and there are some breathtaking shots during the films climax. For the most part though, it's a masterclass in stimulating the audiences imagination, and is scary in what you don't actually see.
And the of course there is THAT ending. If you somehow haven't seen The Mist yet, then go in with as little knowledge as possible, and let that ending just destroy your very soul. Its propels what is a good horror, into an all timer, even if it is a straight up depression simulator.
Really worth a look for any fans of horror, sci-fi, monsters, or Stephen King, and seek out the black and white version for extra satisfaction!
The Mist is flat out fantastic for a handful of reasons.
Firstly, it has a ridiculously good cast - Thomas Jane, Marcia Gay Harden, Andre Braugher, Tony Jones, Laurie Holden, Jeffrey DeMunn, William Sadler, Alexa Davalos, Sam Witwer...there isn't a weak link at all, and it's a damn good job - The Mist isn't a straight forward creature feature. Although it's does have it's fair share of monster moments, it's main focus is on the dangers of fanatacism, and the delusions of human beings, as a lot of regular Joes who are just scared of the events unfolding, start to blindly follow the words of Mrs. Carmody, someone who is truly unhinged, and truly believes what she preaches - it's a concept all too familiar in today's real world, and Marcia Gay Harden puts in a show stopping performance, and is one the easiest-to-hate horror antagonists ever put to screen.
The titular Mist is realised superbly, and also does a good job at hiding the CGI monsters effectively. What we do get shown is just enough for a decent payoff, and there are some breathtaking shots during the films climax. For the most part though, it's a masterclass in stimulating the audiences imagination, and is scary in what you don't actually see.
And the of course there is THAT ending. If you somehow haven't seen The Mist yet, then go in with as little knowledge as possible, and let that ending just destroy your very soul. Its propels what is a good horror, into an all timer, even if it is a straight up depression simulator.
Really worth a look for any fans of horror, sci-fi, monsters, or Stephen King, and seek out the black and white version for extra satisfaction!
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Institute in Books
Oct 24, 2019
Likable characters (1 more)
Paranormal
Sexualizing children (1 more)
Not a regular King story
At around 95 novels, Stephen King, who is one of the most well-known authors of our time, debuts a possible new novel series about psychic children. 'The Institute' mostly takes place in a hidden facility located in a wooded area of Maine,where readers follow a kidnapped child prodigy named Luke Ellis, and the government experiments that are inflicted on him to heighten his psychic powers.
So why is the government kidnapping children to conduct psychic research on them? At first, it may seem just that: psychic research, because psychic powers seem to be more powerful in young children than adults, but nothing is what it seems. As the boss of this Institute says to the children: " ' There's a war going on, and you have been called upon to serve your country.' " A few sentences later, and she explains it a little more in depth for Ellis: " ' This is not an arms race but a mind race, and if we lose, the consequences would be more than dire; they would be unimaginable. You may only be twelve, but you are a soldier in an undeclared war. The same is true of Kalisha and the others. Do you like it? Of course not. Draftees never do, and draftees sometimes need to be taught that there are consequences for not following orders. I believe you've already had one lesson in that regard. If you're as bright as your records say you are, perhaps you won't need another. If you do, however, you'll get it. This is not your home. This is not your school. You will not simply be given an extra chore or sent to the principal's office or given detention; you will be punished. Clear? ' "
King writes in a third-person point-of-view, which makes it a little disturbing that when any female character he introduces (including girls as young as 11-years-old) are usually introduced by their breast size. It's not uncommon for male writers to introduce female characters this way, but when most of them are children, it can be very off putting for readers. One scene, King makes Ellis notice that Kalisha has 'her hands on her mostly nonexistent hips,' then writes about the character Helen in the same scene: " Another door opened and Helen Simms appeared, clad - - - sort of - - - in what Luke believed were called babydoll pajamas. She had hips, plus other interesting equipment. " Both of these characters are only twelve-years-old.
Aside from the children, King also introduces an important character named Tim Jamieson. This character starts the novel off before readers meet Ellis; we learn that he is a former cop who is traveling to New York while taking odd jobs on his way there, including a night knocker job in DuPray, South Carolina (which becomes very important later on in the story) .
Avery, my personal favorite character in the book, is a ten-year-old who acts like a five-year-old, " The screamer was a little boy in Star Wars pajamas, hammering on doors with small fists that went up and down like pistons. Ten? Avery Dixon looked six, seven at most. The crotch and one leg of his pajama pants were wet and sticking to him. " Dixon and Kalisha are both in the Institute for telepathy. " 'You know so,' Kalisha said, and began to stroke the little boy's [Dixon] hair again. Like had a sense - - - maybe bullshit, maybe not - - - that a lot was going on between them. Inside traffic. " And quickly, the group of children become protective of Dixon, " 'But you need to take care of this one for as long as you can. When I think of Tony or Zeke or that bitch Winona hitting Avery, it makes me want to cry. ' " Kalisha confides in Ellis.
Kalisha, one of the other children that has been kidnapped, is another very likable character that seems to keep all of the other kids' spirits up by either keeping them out of trouble with advice or stopping small fights between them. Another kid named Nicky, the troublemaker of the group, is the stereo-typical bad boy. He gets involved in fistfights with the orderlies that work at the Institute, taking quite a bit of abuse in return. But eventually, the rebelliousness catches up with him, leading him to be moved from Front Half to the dreaded Back Half.
Readers later learn that Back Half is worse than Front Half. Most questions we may have about why the Institute is abusing these children are all answered when readers get to see into Back Half from Kalisha's point-of-view. But what is left unanswered is exactly how many children have been through the Institute? From the amount of children seen just in this story, the numbers could be in the hundreds of thousands!
But, as expected, the children come up with a plan to escape - - - with giving as little detail as possible, an orderlie at the Institute is helped by one of the children with a personal problem, and in return, this orderlie decides to help one of them escape and reveal everything that is the Institute. The instance the escape starts being discussed is when the book really picks up.
King's writing of the abuse our characters sustain is very real (" When Stevie Whipple asked where he'd been and what was wrong, Luke just shook his head. He didn't want to talk about the tank. Not now, not ever. He supposed it was like being in a war. You got drafted, you went, but you didn't want to talk about what you'd seen, or what had happened to you there." ) The scene in which Ellis refuses to speak of is where the orderlie Zeke is trying to make Ellis confess that he is not only telekinesis, but also telepathic: "Zeke hauled him up by the hair. His white tunic was soaked. He looked fixedly at Luke. 'I'm going to put you down again, Luke. Again and again and again. I'll put you down until you drown and then we'll resuscitate you and drown you again and resuscitate you again. Last chance: what number am I thinking of?' "
King brings up a fictional belief that strikes fear in parents everywhere: children being kidnapped for government experiments. Readers witness Ellis' parents being killed, Kalisha being a surrogate mother to kids she barely knows, Nicky being beaten by adults when he refuses to get 'shots for dots,' night terrors, suicide, zap sticks and murder.
This book doesn't read like a regular King book; even with the paranormal aspects occurring in it, it doesn't add up to much. The horror aspect is more in the form of child abuse then paranormal moments. I would only recommend this book to fans of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' and Patterson's 'Maximum Ride.' I don't think I would read this again.
So why is the government kidnapping children to conduct psychic research on them? At first, it may seem just that: psychic research, because psychic powers seem to be more powerful in young children than adults, but nothing is what it seems. As the boss of this Institute says to the children: " ' There's a war going on, and you have been called upon to serve your country.' " A few sentences later, and she explains it a little more in depth for Ellis: " ' This is not an arms race but a mind race, and if we lose, the consequences would be more than dire; they would be unimaginable. You may only be twelve, but you are a soldier in an undeclared war. The same is true of Kalisha and the others. Do you like it? Of course not. Draftees never do, and draftees sometimes need to be taught that there are consequences for not following orders. I believe you've already had one lesson in that regard. If you're as bright as your records say you are, perhaps you won't need another. If you do, however, you'll get it. This is not your home. This is not your school. You will not simply be given an extra chore or sent to the principal's office or given detention; you will be punished. Clear? ' "
King writes in a third-person point-of-view, which makes it a little disturbing that when any female character he introduces (including girls as young as 11-years-old) are usually introduced by their breast size. It's not uncommon for male writers to introduce female characters this way, but when most of them are children, it can be very off putting for readers. One scene, King makes Ellis notice that Kalisha has 'her hands on her mostly nonexistent hips,' then writes about the character Helen in the same scene: " Another door opened and Helen Simms appeared, clad - - - sort of - - - in what Luke believed were called babydoll pajamas. She had hips, plus other interesting equipment. " Both of these characters are only twelve-years-old.
Aside from the children, King also introduces an important character named Tim Jamieson. This character starts the novel off before readers meet Ellis; we learn that he is a former cop who is traveling to New York while taking odd jobs on his way there, including a night knocker job in DuPray, South Carolina (which becomes very important later on in the story) .
Avery, my personal favorite character in the book, is a ten-year-old who acts like a five-year-old, " The screamer was a little boy in Star Wars pajamas, hammering on doors with small fists that went up and down like pistons. Ten? Avery Dixon looked six, seven at most. The crotch and one leg of his pajama pants were wet and sticking to him. " Dixon and Kalisha are both in the Institute for telepathy. " 'You know so,' Kalisha said, and began to stroke the little boy's [Dixon] hair again. Like had a sense - - - maybe bullshit, maybe not - - - that a lot was going on between them. Inside traffic. " And quickly, the group of children become protective of Dixon, " 'But you need to take care of this one for as long as you can. When I think of Tony or Zeke or that bitch Winona hitting Avery, it makes me want to cry. ' " Kalisha confides in Ellis.
Kalisha, one of the other children that has been kidnapped, is another very likable character that seems to keep all of the other kids' spirits up by either keeping them out of trouble with advice or stopping small fights between them. Another kid named Nicky, the troublemaker of the group, is the stereo-typical bad boy. He gets involved in fistfights with the orderlies that work at the Institute, taking quite a bit of abuse in return. But eventually, the rebelliousness catches up with him, leading him to be moved from Front Half to the dreaded Back Half.
Readers later learn that Back Half is worse than Front Half. Most questions we may have about why the Institute is abusing these children are all answered when readers get to see into Back Half from Kalisha's point-of-view. But what is left unanswered is exactly how many children have been through the Institute? From the amount of children seen just in this story, the numbers could be in the hundreds of thousands!
But, as expected, the children come up with a plan to escape - - - with giving as little detail as possible, an orderlie at the Institute is helped by one of the children with a personal problem, and in return, this orderlie decides to help one of them escape and reveal everything that is the Institute. The instance the escape starts being discussed is when the book really picks up.
King's writing of the abuse our characters sustain is very real (" When Stevie Whipple asked where he'd been and what was wrong, Luke just shook his head. He didn't want to talk about the tank. Not now, not ever. He supposed it was like being in a war. You got drafted, you went, but you didn't want to talk about what you'd seen, or what had happened to you there." ) The scene in which Ellis refuses to speak of is where the orderlie Zeke is trying to make Ellis confess that he is not only telekinesis, but also telepathic: "Zeke hauled him up by the hair. His white tunic was soaked. He looked fixedly at Luke. 'I'm going to put you down again, Luke. Again and again and again. I'll put you down until you drown and then we'll resuscitate you and drown you again and resuscitate you again. Last chance: what number am I thinking of?' "
King brings up a fictional belief that strikes fear in parents everywhere: children being kidnapped for government experiments. Readers witness Ellis' parents being killed, Kalisha being a surrogate mother to kids she barely knows, Nicky being beaten by adults when he refuses to get 'shots for dots,' night terrors, suicide, zap sticks and murder.
This book doesn't read like a regular King book; even with the paranormal aspects occurring in it, it doesn't add up to much. The horror aspect is more in the form of child abuse then paranormal moments. I would only recommend this book to fans of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' and Patterson's 'Maximum Ride.' I don't think I would read this again.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) Feb 26, 2022
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) Feb 26, 2022