Search

Search only in certain items:

At Love's Command (Hanger's Horsemen, #1)
10
10.0 (1 Ratings)
Book Rating
Have you ever read a book by Karen Witemeyer? If not, you are missing out on some of the best fiction books out there. At Love’s Command is the first book in a new 3 (or 4) book series and wowzah what a fun start to the series it book was. Even if you do not like westerns, I can guarantee that you will like this one. Karen Witmeyer has a similar writing style to that of Mary Connealy, and Ronie Kendig.

I think I smiled within the first few pages of At Love’s Command as Karen Witemeyer brought forth her character's fun wit and charm. I loved their believable personalities and their willingness to be strong in their beliefs. Matthew is now one of my favorite male characters ever. He showed humility, leadership, love, and most of all a deep trust in turning to God with any problem that came his way. Dr. Josephine was also a most likable character, I loved her “10-dollar words”, and the verbal sparring she sis with Matthew and others from The Horsemen gang. She was also a strong independent woman, but she was humble and showed wisdom when she knew others had better knowledge of the situation than she did. I will say it again, I LOVED this combination of characters.

The storyline pulled me in right from the very beginning, as I said, I was smiling from some of the interactions within the first few pages. It was so believable, combined with the bits of history thrown in, interwoven with some good action, and the theme of turning to God in every situation made this book so enjoyable for me. I will definitely be reading the rest of the books in this series. <br/>I give this book 5 out of 5 stars for the great characters, the intriguing storyline (that I am so looking forward to reading more of), and for the characters continually pointing back to God as their source of strength and wisdom. I HIGHLY recommend this book.

*I volunteered to read this book in return for my honest feedback. The thoughts and opinions expressed within are my own.

https://travelingwife4life.wordpress.com/2020/06/26/at-loves-command-bethany-house
  
40x40

Daniel Rossen recommended track Little Church by Miles Davis in Live Evil by Miles Davis in Music (curated)

 
Live Evil by Miles Davis
Live Evil by Miles Davis
1970 | Jazz
(0 Ratings)
Album Favorite

Little Church by Miles Davis

(0 Ratings)

Track

"This is from Live-Evil, which is a really intense and brutal album, but ‘Little Church’ is a little three-minute moment that’s a really beautiful, otherworldly, disorientating and extremely contained song within a crazy, fiery record. “It’s amazing what this pulls off in three minutes. The lead is somebody whistling in combination with a trumpet, there’s this moving, really melodic bassline and a crazy organ sound swirling around the entire track to this beautiful, almost Brazilian chord progression, but there’s no rhythm whatsoever. It’s so unique and I’d never heard that kind of tonality or sensibility. “It probably relates more to the kind of songwriting that we do rather than jazz, it’s not really jazz, it’s closer to Brazilian music or like writing a ballad, but without words. It’s another one of those songs I’ve always come back to, I still refer and think back to it when we’re making records as an example of a certain kind of energy, vibe and intensity. “It sounds like it’s on another planet, I couldn’t have imagined hearing anything like this before I heard it and as soon as I did it transported me in a way that I’d never experienced, it was like entering a dream world. That’s something I always think of as a goal in making music, entering a landscape, a dream-like state or trance, like accessing something outside of your own reality. I love when music can do that, it feels like you’re entering another reality basically. “I first heard this when I was fourteen and when you’re that age the serotonin in your brain functions so differently, everything means so much more. Your brain chemistry changes over time, it’s still fun, but you’ve got to work a little harder to make it as fun as when you were younger, but because I still have that memory, I can kind of conjure the same serotonin rush it gave me as a kid. “You learn to appreciate other sides of music as you get older, you can access the same kind of stimulation without it being this overwhelming serotonin blast."

Source
  
40x40

Joe Dante recommended The Black Cat (1941) in Movies (curated)

 
The Black Cat (1941)
The Black Cat (1941)
1941 | Classics, Comedy, Horror
(0 Ratings)
Movie Favorite

"Growing up on movies on TV, part of the Universal package was a very, very weird and creepy movie called The Black Cat. Which is ostensibly based on Edgar Allen Poe’s story, but wasn’t. It’s a devil-worshiping movie with Karloff and Lugosi, and it’s directed by a guy named Edgar Ulmer, who was a very promising European director whose career ran afoul of the fact that he slept with the boss’s niece or something like that and got, basically, blackballed by the major studios. But before he did that, he was able to make this very, very dark and very dreamlike horror movie, which only runs about 65 minutes. It’s an art deco nightmare, and it’s got all these very perverse ideas and concepts running through it. It’s like watching somebody else’s bad dream. It’s really a wonderful picture. I mean, Karloff has given better performances. The Body Snatcher is probably his best performance outside of Frankenstein, and that was on my list, but between The Body Snatcher and The Black Cat, I have to go with The Black Cat, because it’s so off-beat and kind of unique. There aren’t a lot of other movies like it. The interesting thing is, now these movies are actually available to see. When I was growing up, you had to wait until two o’clock in the morning on Friday; they were going to run some movie, and if you didn’t watch it then, they weren’t gonna run it again for another year and a half or more. And you’d fall asleep anyway, you know. It was so hard to see these things. You had to really seek them out. The Mario Bava movies, I had to go to the lowest dives, the crappiest grindhouses, to see these things, and often the prints were all beat up. But now, all this stuff is available, and it looks great. I just don’t think film lovers realize what a paradise they’re living in right now. [laughs] For those of us who really had to go the distance to seek these things out, it was really quite arduous."

Source
  
Free Birds (2013)
Free Birds (2013)
2013 | Animation, Comedy
7
5.1 (8 Ratings)
Movie Rating
A Fun Thanksgiving Flick
When asked to list films worth watching that have a Thanksgiving theme, the BankofMarquis likes to pull out a little animated gem that came and went pretty quickly in 2013 - FREE BIRDS - starring the voices of Owen Wilson and Woody Harrelson as 2 turkeys that go back in time in an egg-shaped time machine named STEVE (voiced by George Takei - more on that later) to stop the first Thanksgiving. This film succeeds more than it doesn't.

The first full length animated feature film from REEL FX (one of only 2 they have put out thus far) FREE BIRDS suffers from that kiss of death - multiple writers revising the script over time. Directed by JImmy Hayward (HORTON HEARS A WHO), who is also credited with writing this film alongside long time Kevin Smith collaborator Scott Mosier,FREE BIRDS is actually a pretty fun film, despite the disjointedness of the plot.

Credit should go to the stellar voice cast, led by Owen Wilson and Woody Harrelson. They have tremendous chemistry together and are a fun pair to watch. Joining them is the always dependable Amy Poehler (who would shine as the voice of Joy years later in Pixar's INSIDE OUT). It was fun spending an hour and a half with these 3 - and the others in this cast: Colm Meaney, David Keith and Dan Fogler.

But, for me, the star of this film is Star Trek's George Takei as the voice of S.T.E.V.E (the egg-shaped time machine device). He understands what type of film he is in and delivers just the right blend of comedy and seriousness that helps elevate the proceedings. And that is good for, as I stated above, the plot is a bit disjointed, so I would recommend you just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.

The critics panned this film, but it made over $110 million at the box office (more than doubling it's production cost), so many, many moviegoers had the same, fun experience that I did.

And...you will, too...if you give FREE BIRDS a try.

Letter Grade: B

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
  
40x40

Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Die Hard (1988) in Movies

Jan 16, 2021 (Updated Jan 17, 2021)  
Die Hard (1988)
Die Hard (1988)
1988 | Action
The casting (3 more)
Plot
SFX
Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman in general
Most of the sequels (0 more)
Welcome to the party pal!
In 1988 Hollywood Gambled on a lesser known tv star for it's high budget action thriller.

Laughed at when hearing their choice of actor, it was the 80's and when you heard action movie you'd immediately think "Schwarzenegger or stallone, maybe even Kurt Russel" Hollywood wanted obe of the bigger stars and reached out to them, but they all turned it down so average Joe became their Vacationing NYPD hero, so they stuck with the man known as Bruce Willis!

Whilst Visiting his estranged wife at the (fictional) Nakatomi plaza (Fox plaza) the building and it's workforce are quickly taken hostage.

Enter John McClain (willis) a rough looking, smooth talking (the guy literally has a smooth/relaxed voice) witty, sarcastic NYPD cop who just can't seem to catch a break.

Armed with everything I wrote above, aswell as bare feet, air-vents, and a fire hose, McClain pursues the terrorists in an action packed attempt at proving his wife wrong and maybe saving a few people in the process.

Die Hard is a classic 80's action epic that spawned many terrible sequels (excluding 'with a vengeance') that we still paid to watch aswell as countless knockoffs.

Did you know?
. The team behind die hard was laughed at because of their lead choice (you should do I just told you)

. The movie was almost shut down because they used a real life helicopter around the building whilst local residents tried to sleep causing an outrage and filed complaints.

. miniature explosions were set of atop the building for affect.

. Alan Rickman was lied to about when he'd be dropped from the "building" the capture a natural look of fear (about a 30ft drop).

. It was Alan Rickmans first movie ( what a way to hit the ground and keep running)

. A replica model of the building was built to film the remaining explosions on the building.

. The original Vest (tank top) is on display in the Smithsonian.

                    
.the movie was filmed during official construction of the fox plaza aka nakatomi plaza.
  
Touching The Void
Touching The Void
6
6.0 (1 Ratings)
Book Rating
At school a little while ago we looked at an extract from this book, and I decided I may as well read the rest of the book too.

If you don't already know, Joe Simpson suffered a serious leg injury while climbing a previously unreached summit in the Peruvian Andes, 1985. His partner, Simon Yates, had a life-changing decision to make that would determine who would live and who would not.

Joe tells his story in excruciating detail, with snippets from his partner's point of view, too. He uses a lot of technical language as would be expected, which can sometimes go straight over the reader's head. He describes his emotions, his physical pain after the injury, and the setting that he found himself in.

Things go well at first, but during the descent there is serious trouble. Joe and Simon work together to lower Joe with his disformed leg, and it works for some time. But eventually, Simon has to decide whether to cut the rope or not.

After his first injury, Joe manages to survive an unbelievably long fall. But now he's stuck in the crevasse, alone, with no hopes of returning to camp alive. Meanwhile, Simon is having to overcome his guilt and travel alone, with several frostbitten fingers and no food or water. The journey that both men must take is truly amazing and although you know the general outcome, you find yourself reading on and on to see what happens next.

Although it seems like a pretty short book, it took me slightly longer than expected to finish it. The technicalities meant nothing to me most of the time, making it slightly hard to visualise the scene in detail. But I was still able to appreciate the difficulties and obstacles that the climbers had to overcome, and I am amazed at how they did it.

The photos included throughout the book were really helpful for scene-setting, and show how stunning the views were over the mountain range.
 
I don't read biographies that often, so I knew it wouldn't be my favourite book. But it was good, and if you like this sort of thing then I would definitely recommend it. 3.5 stars I think.
  
Trophy Wife (The Dumont Diaries, #0.5-5)
Trophy Wife (The Dumont Diaries, #0.5-5)
Alessandra Torre | 2017 | Fiction & Poetry
6
6.0 (2 Ratings)
Book Rating
MMM, this is a hard one, on the one hand, I very much enjoyed Trophy Wife and on the other, there was some real no no's that totally turn me off when it comes to erotic fiction.
This is the main reason I've marked it down in my ratings.
Now obviously what sinks my ship may float your boat and more, we are all different and you may find my reasons don't bother you at all.
Now there are gonna be some teeny spoilers ahead as It's major unavoidable if I am going to explain why I've marked this down.
My major hard limit
CHEATING!!!!!
and not only cheating, the fact that no one's really bothered and I know this may seem a bit boring, but I like my Lover & Lovee to save the honey for each other, no excuses, no we were on a break and definitely no contact of any kind whatsoever, no exceptions and that means kissing also.
Why you might ask.
BECAUSE THERE MEANT TO BE BLOODY IN LOVE!!!!!!
or getting there at least and I'm a die hard romantic like that.
So yes no bodily contact with others while still being as filthy as downright sin is the flavour I like to see in my reading.
So, of course, this is where Trophy Wife let me down a bit, I maybe could have overlooked this if either Nathan or Candy had got their knickers in a twist diva style or something to that effect, but no let's brush it under the carpet like it never happened, and yes it's still cheating in my book when he takes his ex-girlfriend back and sleeps with her while still being married to Candy.
So the poor boy needed to get his leg over with his ex to decide he's in love with his wife geez!!
What happened did a shag unlock his brain.
And I do know that Candy is not exactly innocent either, They both behaved like a pair of absolute bloody pillocks in my opinion.
The second thing I had an issue with was the car incident. I have nothing against voyeurism at all but when Nathan gets candy to perform a certain service for his business associate and calls her a derogatory name in front of him well this wasn't hot or sexy one iota I was cringing in shame for the poor girl, awful behaviour.
The third and final thing and it may seem a tad silly but it's the name CANDY!!!
I hate it, it sounds like a stereotypical strippers name, which I know Candy is, but couldn't the poor girl have had something more sophisticated than Candy.
Despite my above bugbears, I really did like the rest of this book. It was mucky as hell and hot hot hot.
The story flowed brilliantly and I especially loved seeing the inner thoughts of both Candy & Nathan.
I feel that we needed to see inside Nathan's head as well as if I hadn't I don't know if I could have warmed to him at all.
He was such a dominant man, his vulnerability was so well hidden that it was his musings inside is own head that showed he had a softer side.
Trophy Wife by Alessandra Torre gets a three & half from me a great read with some issues that for me are just personal preferences.
You they might not affect at all.
Trophy Wife is currently free on KU.

https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
  
The Lady Vanishes (1938)
The Lady Vanishes (1938)
1938 | Mystery
7
7.7 (3 Ratings)
Movie Rating
A Film That Never Quite Steadies Itself
When a woman disappears after a train ride, iris Henderson (Margaret Lockwood), who was on the same train, is trying to prove that the woman was even there to begin with and get to the bottom of what’s going on. I always root for the classics (50’s or earlier) because of my immense respect for film and also wanting to recommend some hidden gems. Unfortunately this one fell a bit short for me and here’s why…

Acting: 10
I thought the performances were quite on par for the course. Lockwood delivers her lines with a sincerity and truth that almost manages to keep me engaged. I wish her character was more interesting, but that’s not her fault. She had a job and she did that job in stellar fashion along with some of the other main actors/actresses that came along for this ride.

Beginning: 10

Characters: 2
These characters were about as interesting as canned chicken noodle soup, not the kind you get from PF Chang’s. No, these are Great Value characters all day and they bored me to tears. I wanted someone, ANYONE, to make me care and I just couldn’t bring myself to latch on to any of them. You know what I always say and it bears repeating: When you have weak characters, you’re not even giving your story a fighting chance. Good characters are like the tires on a fine car. The car means nothing if it doesn’t have a means in which to be transported.

Cinematography/Visuals: 7

Conflict: 6
I never really felt like much was happening. There are flashes, sure, but I just couldn’t get a grasp on the stakes for some reason. I waited, believe me I did, but I left the viewing wanting much more than what I got.

Entertainment Value: 7

Memorability: 10
I know this is going to seem ass-backwards from everything I’ve written up to this point, but I scored this category so high because of the attempt at an original story. No, it wasn’t perfect. Yes, the execution could have been much better. However, I do feel like this is a film that needs to be respected within its time.

Pace: 5
Things never really steadied for me as I found myself continuously looking at the clock. While it picks up slightly towards its conclusion, it never really gains the steam that I was looking for. For me, there was just too much of too much, meaning it kept veering off into different directions before properly getting to the end of one road.

Plot: 5

Resolution: 10
As I mentioned, things definitely pick up steam at the end until you get to a thrilling conclusion. When it was all said and done, I found myself asking, “Why the hell couldn’t the rest of the movie be like this?” It was almost like there was a different director for the last fifteen minutes of the movie. Definitely ties a nice bow on things.

Overall: 68
As of this review, The Lady Vanishes has a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes with an 88% Audience Score. I plan to watch this movie again because it missed me the first time. Maybe the second time around I’ll pick up on the magic I seem to be missing.
  
Strangers: Prey at Night (2018)
Strangers: Prey at Night (2018)
2018 | Horror
Real-feeling Characters (2 more)
Escalating Tension
Some Excellent Scenes
Some Naff Shots (1 more)
Hammy Acting
Contains spoilers, click to show
I’ve heard a lot of trash about this movie, and only some of it is right. Don’t get me wrong - it has its downfalls. We’ll get to those. But it’s a genuinely fun horror movie and, considering the predictability of the slasher genre, it’s fairly terrifying: the suspense doesn’t let up from damn near the beginning. For full disclosure, I haven’t seen the original Strangers movie, and I’ve heard it’s a whole lot better than this 2018 sequel. But the fact that Prey at Night stands successfully alone as a movie means it doesn’t matter which order you watch them in - all I’d say is that it’s probably best not to pay much attention to the reviews on this one (as sefl-destructive as a comment like that might be). It’s impressive in its own right, and if this apparently-subpar sequel is anything to go by, the original must be worthwhile. I’ll let you know once I’ve actually seen it.

Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.

Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?

Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.

At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.