Search
Auburn (57 KP) rated The Summer Marked (The Winter People, #2) in Books
Apr 10, 2019
If you are looking for a happy sequel to the first book then turn away now. There is no light at the end of the tunnel here. Instead everything that can go wrong goes worse than expected. There is more, blood, torture, and loss of love.
Maybe the third will be better and close out the series with a bow. But I doubt it.
Maybe the third will be better and close out the series with a bow. But I doubt it.
Jigsaw (2017)
6.4
Rate It
Movie Watch
Over a decade after the death of the infamous Jigsaw killer, police investigate a new series of...
Saw Torture. Sequel
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Saw II (2005) in Movies
Jan 8, 2020
Against The Clock
Saw II- continues off of the first one. More games, more victims and more torture. I like the story, I like donnie Walhburg, I like tobin Bell and I like Shawnee Smith. I like the twist and turns thoughout the movie. I like the psychological espect of the film. So much of the first film is in this film which is good.
The Plot: On the hunt for the twisted vigilante and serial killer Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) and his team must apprehend the elusive murderer to rescue eight people trapped in an abandoned house, before they succumb to his torturous and murderous games. One twist to this task is that Matthews' own son, Daniel (Erik Knudsen), is among the eight people Jigsaw has chosen to test for their lack of morality. With nerve gas pumping through the house, every second counts.
A good sequel to a fantastic first film.
The Plot: On the hunt for the twisted vigilante and serial killer Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) and his team must apprehend the elusive murderer to rescue eight people trapped in an abandoned house, before they succumb to his torturous and murderous games. One twist to this task is that Matthews' own son, Daniel (Erik Knudsen), is among the eight people Jigsaw has chosen to test for their lack of morality. With nerve gas pumping through the house, every second counts.
A good sequel to a fantastic first film.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Unhinged (2020) in Movies
Jul 31, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
After a confrontation at a set of traffic lights, Rachel finds herself in a race for the survival of her family, friends and herself.
Russell Crowe plays a man who has had enough, imagine if a film like 'Falling Down' had continued (or had a sequel) where the main character had gone completely off the rails and you'd have Crowe's character. After being honked by Rachel at a set of traffic lights the Man decides to teach her what a bad day is really like. After terrorising Rachel as she drives around the Man moves on to attacking and killing her friends and family, blaming Rachel for her actions.
There is a lot driving in Unhinged, Rachel spends most of the time in her car either avoiding the man or trying to plan what to next and the man switches between chasing Rachel or terrorising her family.
The moral of the film is that road rage is everywhere, be polite to people because you don't know who you're talking to and that you can use 'Fortnight' tactics in real life.
Once it gets going, Unhinged doesn't give up, there's violence, torture and threat interspersed with car chases that also contain threat.
Unhinged also tries to comment on society, as the man kills one of Rachel's friends, people look on, film the event or walk away but no one tries to help, some people do call the police but no one tries to stop the man.
Unhinged is fast paced, and violent, I found it a bit predictable but still enjoyable.
Russell Crowe plays a man who has had enough, imagine if a film like 'Falling Down' had continued (or had a sequel) where the main character had gone completely off the rails and you'd have Crowe's character. After being honked by Rachel at a set of traffic lights the Man decides to teach her what a bad day is really like. After terrorising Rachel as she drives around the Man moves on to attacking and killing her friends and family, blaming Rachel for her actions.
There is a lot driving in Unhinged, Rachel spends most of the time in her car either avoiding the man or trying to plan what to next and the man switches between chasing Rachel or terrorising her family.
The moral of the film is that road rage is everywhere, be polite to people because you don't know who you're talking to and that you can use 'Fortnight' tactics in real life.
Once it gets going, Unhinged doesn't give up, there's violence, torture and threat interspersed with car chases that also contain threat.
Unhinged also tries to comment on society, as the man kills one of Rachel's friends, people look on, film the event or walk away but no one tries to help, some people do call the police but no one tries to stop the man.
Unhinged is fast paced, and violent, I found it a bit predictable but still enjoyable.
Andrew Kennedy (199 KP) rated Cube (1997) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
The puzzles (1 more)
Original concept
Before Saw and Hostel conjured up the term "torture porn" and it was rammed home with each sequel, a little Canadian film called Cube came out to little fanfare in 1997.
Made for a mere $400,000 dollars and with a lot of the special effects provided by local Canadian companies for free.
It is a simple yet ingenious premise, six strangers awaken in series of cube like rooms no recollection of how they got there or even why they are there. It also seems some of the rooms contain traps.
The tense and almost claustrophobic surroundings force both friendships and mistrust in equal measure.
The characters are well rounded and deliver believable performances of people trapped against their will, for the most part. There is a one point I disliked that felt too preachy but I did like the character.
The other thing I enjoyed was the forced interaction between the main protagonists because while there are traps this isn't some Saw film, the traps are present but just to provide the threat of one false move. I would even argue that at times the traps don't provide much of a threat but the "silent cube" really rings every drop of tension out of that scene.
The most interesting thing I found was that some people criticized the ending. Yes by the end not everything is explained, there is a lot of questions left unanswered and this is a good thing.
Why must we have everything explained? Leave thinking and wondering. Director Vincenzo Natali did film a longer ending and it was the first thing he cut.
Made for a mere $400,000 dollars and with a lot of the special effects provided by local Canadian companies for free.
It is a simple yet ingenious premise, six strangers awaken in series of cube like rooms no recollection of how they got there or even why they are there. It also seems some of the rooms contain traps.
The tense and almost claustrophobic surroundings force both friendships and mistrust in equal measure.
The characters are well rounded and deliver believable performances of people trapped against their will, for the most part. There is a one point I disliked that felt too preachy but I did like the character.
The other thing I enjoyed was the forced interaction between the main protagonists because while there are traps this isn't some Saw film, the traps are present but just to provide the threat of one false move. I would even argue that at times the traps don't provide much of a threat but the "silent cube" really rings every drop of tension out of that scene.
The most interesting thing I found was that some people criticized the ending. Yes by the end not everything is explained, there is a lot of questions left unanswered and this is a good thing.
Why must we have everything explained? Leave thinking and wondering. Director Vincenzo Natali did film a longer ending and it was the first thing he cut.
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Beating Ruby (Spotless Series Book 2) in Books
Jan 18, 2018
I have been putting off this review for a long time because once I write it, I must accept that I have finished the novel and the wait for book 3 begins. If I loved Spotless, I dont think there are words for how I feel about Beating Ruby. I dont think I could love this series more if I tried. It is utter perfection in every way and has everything you could ever want in a novel whether that be action, romance, or humor. Monk (and her leading lady Island) has a unique voice that gives her life all her own. I didnt think it was possible for an author to fit so much personality into a fictional character, but I feel as if Island and I are old friends, that she is flesh and blood instead of words on paper. Not to mention she is far more relatable than the plethora of heroines I read about.
I will be honest and say that Beating Ruby was a bit hard to get into. Mainly because, like Island, I was still too hung up on March to give Alex, or the plotline itself, a chance. I am so glad I hung in there though. Monk likes to torture her readers with what ifs and maybes, but at least in the instance, she wasnt a complete sadist.
While I enjoyed Spotless, I definitely feel that Beating Ruby surpassed the bar its prequel raised. It still had the same sassy humor and brains that Spotless had. However, I feel Beating Ruby brought more emotions that Spotless just didnt touch. Of course, there was plenty of leftover turmoil from secrets revealed in Spotless to fuel the emotional fire as well as questions that still needed answers.
Again, Monk ends her sequel with what I would consider a cliffhanger. I should be furious that I have to suffer yet again until she graces us with the third in the series. However, I think I can forgive her since Beating Ruby surpassed its predecessor. Even if the third is only half as good as the first two, I will content.
I will be honest and say that Beating Ruby was a bit hard to get into. Mainly because, like Island, I was still too hung up on March to give Alex, or the plotline itself, a chance. I am so glad I hung in there though. Monk likes to torture her readers with what ifs and maybes, but at least in the instance, she wasnt a complete sadist.
While I enjoyed Spotless, I definitely feel that Beating Ruby surpassed the bar its prequel raised. It still had the same sassy humor and brains that Spotless had. However, I feel Beating Ruby brought more emotions that Spotless just didnt touch. Of course, there was plenty of leftover turmoil from secrets revealed in Spotless to fuel the emotional fire as well as questions that still needed answers.
Again, Monk ends her sequel with what I would consider a cliffhanger. I should be furious that I have to suffer yet again until she graces us with the third in the series. However, I think I can forgive her since Beating Ruby surpassed its predecessor. Even if the third is only half as good as the first two, I will content.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Don't Breathe (2016) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020 (Updated Feb 22, 2020)
For the most part, Don't Breathe is a really tight gem of a thriller with some decent horror elements throughout.
The movie revolves around three thieves - Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette) and Money (Daniel Zovatto) trying to steal themselves enough valuables to be able to move away from their home city of Detroit.
When they hear about a sizable stash of cash hidden in the house of a blind war veteran (Stephen Lang), they get to work on what they assume will be an easy score. Things go rapidly downhill as it becomes apparent that The Blind Man isn't as helpless as they thought, and they become Tangled in a game of cat and mouse as they try to escape with their lives.
Don't Breathe is an incredibly tense film. It's dimly lit set pieces and it's frequently silent atmosphere are hugely effective. Director Fede Alvarez provides continuously great shots throughout (there's an extended sequence around the mid point which takes place in total darkness which is a particular highlight) and utilizes the small set (95% of the film takes place in The Blind Man's house) fantastically.
The cast are pretty good as well. The three thieves are both likable and dislikable at the appropriate moments, and serve their purpose well. Jane Levy is the stand out of the three, playing the role of 'the final girl' with a satisfying mixture of being terrified, vulnerable, and a strong survivalist all at once.
Stephen Lang is the MVP here though. He steals the show as The Blind Man, and manages to portray a genuinely batshit-scary movie monster, well at the same time, being a tragic and sympathetic characters.
This is one of the main strengths if the whole movie actually. Both The Blind Man and the set of thieves are portrayed as characters we should be siding with at one point or another, and then it will flip it over and give us the reverse one point later. The moral compass of who is to root for is in constant flux, and lends the narrative a unique edge.
My main criticism here though is the films final third. After being a stupidly tense thriller and a fight for survival for an hour, Don't Breathe gets a little silly towards it's climax, and downright gratuitous in parts, (the turkey baster to the face ffs!?).
There's not a huge amount of gore in display, so it doesn't quite fall into torture-porn territory, but the vibe is quite similar, and it tarnishes what is otherwise a pretty decent horror.
Overall though, Don't Breathe is worth a watch if you have any passing interest at all in thrillers or horror. With the news of a sequel in the way, I'm excited to see where the story will go.
The movie revolves around three thieves - Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette) and Money (Daniel Zovatto) trying to steal themselves enough valuables to be able to move away from their home city of Detroit.
When they hear about a sizable stash of cash hidden in the house of a blind war veteran (Stephen Lang), they get to work on what they assume will be an easy score. Things go rapidly downhill as it becomes apparent that The Blind Man isn't as helpless as they thought, and they become Tangled in a game of cat and mouse as they try to escape with their lives.
Don't Breathe is an incredibly tense film. It's dimly lit set pieces and it's frequently silent atmosphere are hugely effective. Director Fede Alvarez provides continuously great shots throughout (there's an extended sequence around the mid point which takes place in total darkness which is a particular highlight) and utilizes the small set (95% of the film takes place in The Blind Man's house) fantastically.
The cast are pretty good as well. The three thieves are both likable and dislikable at the appropriate moments, and serve their purpose well. Jane Levy is the stand out of the three, playing the role of 'the final girl' with a satisfying mixture of being terrified, vulnerable, and a strong survivalist all at once.
Stephen Lang is the MVP here though. He steals the show as The Blind Man, and manages to portray a genuinely batshit-scary movie monster, well at the same time, being a tragic and sympathetic characters.
This is one of the main strengths if the whole movie actually. Both The Blind Man and the set of thieves are portrayed as characters we should be siding with at one point or another, and then it will flip it over and give us the reverse one point later. The moral compass of who is to root for is in constant flux, and lends the narrative a unique edge.
My main criticism here though is the films final third. After being a stupidly tense thriller and a fight for survival for an hour, Don't Breathe gets a little silly towards it's climax, and downright gratuitous in parts, (the turkey baster to the face ffs!?).
There's not a huge amount of gore in display, so it doesn't quite fall into torture-porn territory, but the vibe is quite similar, and it tarnishes what is otherwise a pretty decent horror.
Overall though, Don't Breathe is worth a watch if you have any passing interest at all in thrillers or horror. With the news of a sequel in the way, I'm excited to see where the story will go.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Before you read this review of Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, I just want you to know that I can’t stand this franchise. I gave up keeping up with them after Furious 7 and felt like the Fast & Furious franchise peaked/was tolerable around Fast Five and never really went anywhere worthwhile before or since. I have not seen all the films and really only seemed to watch every other entry, but whether you’re in a heist or a drag race that lethal dose of masculinity being projectile vomited all over you by an entire cast (women included) for two hours straight is dull and tiresome. In fact, just call this franchise “Dull & Tiresome” from here on out and I doubt anyone would notice. It’s even got “tire” in there for car…stuff.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Becs (244 KP) rated Siege and Storm in Books
Aug 25, 2019
Nikolai (2 more)
the Darkling
THAT ENDING
has major middle book syndrome (3 more)
main character is still annoying
mal is still a horrible character
there wasn't a lot of the Darkling when the books are supposed to be about him as a villain
Has middle book syndrome B A D but the last half of the book is great!
You can also find this review on my blog: bookingwayreads.wordpress.com
TRIGGER WARNINGS: torture, murder, war themes, hallucinations, death, blood, manipulation, violence
Review:
I originally rated this 4 out of 5 stars but I am dropping it down to 3.5 out of 5 stars as I’ve had a lot of time to think about my review and have realized that Siege and Storm has middle book syndrome.
My one problem with Siege and Storm, is that it needed more of the Darkling in it. The Shadow and Bone Trilogy is about the Darkling being the villain and Siege and Storm did not deliver. You’d think there would have been more of a prescense, but there was just not enough of him! Please take Mal away and replace him with the Darkling!! Also, what in the good lordy fucks was that ending Leigh?! ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL US!? I. AM. DEAD.
I still have an ever growing dislike for Mal. He doesn’t have one bit of empathy in his body and it’s so frustrating! Like he’s supposed to be that rock that Alina can fall back onto for support and he’s just being a douche about her having powers. Can we just replace all of Mal’s scenes with more of my BB’s Nikolai and the Darkling plz?! Nikolai had the best character development and was the most relatable in the entire series thus far.
I’ve not really grown to like Alina as much like others do, as she’s still the same annoying girl that I wish wasn’t as special as she is. One thing I do like about her though, is the whole anti hero darkness she has brewing along with the inner turmoil she’s dealing with. With her new found power enhancements, but I just wish her powers weren’t vaguely talked about.
Another thing I wasn’t entirely a fan of was the love triangle *cough cough* love SQUARE *cough cough* trope that took place throughout the novel. Don’t get me wrong, it was extremely well-written and really filled in some (read: a lot of the) boring parts. BUT, this trope is extremely overrated and can really ruin a novel. It was rather annoying that Alina had all of these men to choose from and she couldn’t make up her mind about any of them. Plus, I don’t think she deserves any of them. So… yea.
Okay, onto the story itself. The first half was… such… a… bore… It was so freaking slow and I wanted to give up on it so much. It also kind of put me into a slump on picking up Ruin and Rising. I just didn’t want to be disappointed like I was with Siege and Storm. The second half of the story on the other hand, was packed to the max with intense scenes and action. I honestly thought my wittle heart would crack into a million pieces.
Leigh’s writing style is extremely unique and well-done. She’s able to write scenes that not only grip your attention, but will also pluck each heart string until that breaking point. Then it will rip your heart out of your chest with one swift moment.
Other than a few bumps, Siege and Storm was captivating to a point, but not as much as Shadow and Bone. It’s a soul sucker of a book and I’m enamored with it. The world-building is some of the best I’ve ever seen, especially for a series. The tensions in scenes is extremely palpable – making this a great sequel to an amazing series.
“You know the problem with heroes and saints Nikolai? They always end up dead.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: torture, murder, war themes, hallucinations, death, blood, manipulation, violence
Review:
I originally rated this 4 out of 5 stars but I am dropping it down to 3.5 out of 5 stars as I’ve had a lot of time to think about my review and have realized that Siege and Storm has middle book syndrome.
My one problem with Siege and Storm, is that it needed more of the Darkling in it. The Shadow and Bone Trilogy is about the Darkling being the villain and Siege and Storm did not deliver. You’d think there would have been more of a prescense, but there was just not enough of him! Please take Mal away and replace him with the Darkling!! Also, what in the good lordy fucks was that ending Leigh?! ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL US!? I. AM. DEAD.
I still have an ever growing dislike for Mal. He doesn’t have one bit of empathy in his body and it’s so frustrating! Like he’s supposed to be that rock that Alina can fall back onto for support and he’s just being a douche about her having powers. Can we just replace all of Mal’s scenes with more of my BB’s Nikolai and the Darkling plz?! Nikolai had the best character development and was the most relatable in the entire series thus far.
I’ve not really grown to like Alina as much like others do, as she’s still the same annoying girl that I wish wasn’t as special as she is. One thing I do like about her though, is the whole anti hero darkness she has brewing along with the inner turmoil she’s dealing with. With her new found power enhancements, but I just wish her powers weren’t vaguely talked about.
Another thing I wasn’t entirely a fan of was the love triangle *cough cough* love SQUARE *cough cough* trope that took place throughout the novel. Don’t get me wrong, it was extremely well-written and really filled in some (read: a lot of the) boring parts. BUT, this trope is extremely overrated and can really ruin a novel. It was rather annoying that Alina had all of these men to choose from and she couldn’t make up her mind about any of them. Plus, I don’t think she deserves any of them. So… yea.
Okay, onto the story itself. The first half was… such… a… bore… It was so freaking slow and I wanted to give up on it so much. It also kind of put me into a slump on picking up Ruin and Rising. I just didn’t want to be disappointed like I was with Siege and Storm. The second half of the story on the other hand, was packed to the max with intense scenes and action. I honestly thought my wittle heart would crack into a million pieces.
Leigh’s writing style is extremely unique and well-done. She’s able to write scenes that not only grip your attention, but will also pluck each heart string until that breaking point. Then it will rip your heart out of your chest with one swift moment.
Other than a few bumps, Siege and Storm was captivating to a point, but not as much as Shadow and Bone. It’s a soul sucker of a book and I’m enamored with it. The world-building is some of the best I’ve ever seen, especially for a series. The tensions in scenes is extremely palpable – making this a great sequel to an amazing series.
“You know the problem with heroes and saints Nikolai? They always end up dead.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.