Search
Search results
Here Come the Warm Jets
Book
"Warren's first book of poems is highly self-reflective, interestingly interrogative, and a lot of...
Hadley (567 KP) rated Stumbling Stoned (The Patchwork Prince #1) in Books
Oct 22, 2020
Dark humor (1 more)
Fast paced
When I realized that Wyck's Stumbling Stoned was like Memento meets a season of Fargo, I was all in. A book about a mental patient with amnesia that has supernatural powers? Yes, please!
I was completely blown away by the twists and turns in this story, and even more so by how well it all fit together. But if you find dark humor distasteful, you won't like this book very much. I found myself giggling at things I probably shouldn't have, but these things made it all the better.
Our main character is an amnesiac mental patient known as John Doe, and the entire story is told from his point-of-view. He escapes from the hospital soon after the start of the story with one of the psychiatrists in-tow. We find that Doe has tied up the former in a bathtub while an older man is tied up to a toilet. The man is unknown to the two, and apparently has jet black eyes that make him seem inhuman. And Doe seems to have eaten a fellow patient's finger and upchucked it in the sink- - - something that surprisingly disgusts him - - - and leads him to a drawing on the mirror above, something Doe drew before blacking out.
Doe, after realizing he kidnapped the psychiatrist, quickly lets her go, and goes off on his own with no idea who he is or where he's going. Just when the reader suspects that Doe might find out who he is, he is suddenly swept up into a human trafficking business and mafia dealings he had no idea existed. And because of this, after being drugged by a mafioso, Doe realizes that he has supernatural powers whenever he is hopped-up on drugs.
When Doe makes an escape from the dirty warehouse where young girls are held as sex slaves, he helps these girls by breaking their chains with his bare hands. Not only does he co-lead their escape, but he also ends up saving the daughter of a well-known Mafia boss. However, this leads to Doe being stuck in the middle of a family feud, and he is almost killed by this very same family for knowing just a little too much. And this isn't even half of the story!
Later on, Doe ends up in the hands of a witch, but he realizes quite quickly that she's not the one to fear, but rather who she is working for - - - a man named Zabat- - - who she is delivering our character to. Somehow, Zabat knows exactly who Doe is and why he has supernatural powers, but he refuses to tell him unless Doe helps him first. Doe refuses and, instead, throws himself out of a high rise window. From here, Doe begins to piece some of his life together, but Zabat causes a couple of problems that ends up revealing to the reader that Doe is not human and that the supernatural powers are not a figment of his imagination.
Now, the story is so fast-paced and borders on ridiculous at some points, yet it all fits together quite well; I personally can't think of another way this story could have been told, but that didn't make the book flawless. Stumbling Stoned had some bad writing techniques in it, but not enough that I think readers would put it down.
I can only recommend this book to people who like dark humor, but as far as horror - - - this isn't that type of book. Stumbling Stoned takes readers on a thrill ride through the seedier side of life. I personally believe this is a good book to read to get away from the daily stressors of life. I truly hope that Wyck decides to write a sequel!
I was completely blown away by the twists and turns in this story, and even more so by how well it all fit together. But if you find dark humor distasteful, you won't like this book very much. I found myself giggling at things I probably shouldn't have, but these things made it all the better.
Our main character is an amnesiac mental patient known as John Doe, and the entire story is told from his point-of-view. He escapes from the hospital soon after the start of the story with one of the psychiatrists in-tow. We find that Doe has tied up the former in a bathtub while an older man is tied up to a toilet. The man is unknown to the two, and apparently has jet black eyes that make him seem inhuman. And Doe seems to have eaten a fellow patient's finger and upchucked it in the sink- - - something that surprisingly disgusts him - - - and leads him to a drawing on the mirror above, something Doe drew before blacking out.
Doe, after realizing he kidnapped the psychiatrist, quickly lets her go, and goes off on his own with no idea who he is or where he's going. Just when the reader suspects that Doe might find out who he is, he is suddenly swept up into a human trafficking business and mafia dealings he had no idea existed. And because of this, after being drugged by a mafioso, Doe realizes that he has supernatural powers whenever he is hopped-up on drugs.
When Doe makes an escape from the dirty warehouse where young girls are held as sex slaves, he helps these girls by breaking their chains with his bare hands. Not only does he co-lead their escape, but he also ends up saving the daughter of a well-known Mafia boss. However, this leads to Doe being stuck in the middle of a family feud, and he is almost killed by this very same family for knowing just a little too much. And this isn't even half of the story!
Later on, Doe ends up in the hands of a witch, but he realizes quite quickly that she's not the one to fear, but rather who she is working for - - - a man named Zabat- - - who she is delivering our character to. Somehow, Zabat knows exactly who Doe is and why he has supernatural powers, but he refuses to tell him unless Doe helps him first. Doe refuses and, instead, throws himself out of a high rise window. From here, Doe begins to piece some of his life together, but Zabat causes a couple of problems that ends up revealing to the reader that Doe is not human and that the supernatural powers are not a figment of his imagination.
Now, the story is so fast-paced and borders on ridiculous at some points, yet it all fits together quite well; I personally can't think of another way this story could have been told, but that didn't make the book flawless. Stumbling Stoned had some bad writing techniques in it, but not enough that I think readers would put it down.
I can only recommend this book to people who like dark humor, but as far as horror - - - this isn't that type of book. Stumbling Stoned takes readers on a thrill ride through the seedier side of life. I personally believe this is a good book to read to get away from the daily stressors of life. I truly hope that Wyck decides to write a sequel!
Camera+ for iPad
Photo & Video and Social Networking
App
“The Clarity filter is iPhone photography’s secret sauce—it adds pro-camera crispness to...
Elegantune Lite - The most Professional Chromatic Tuner for Guitar, Bass, Ukulele, Violin, Pipe and Piano
Music and Utilities
App
Accurate tuner that allows for change in concert tuning. Very effective for solfeggio tuning. --...
Jungle Animal Hair Salon - Wild Makeover
Games and Education
App
Cut, color, shampoo, style and dress up super cute jungle animals: sloth, leopard, toucan, elephant,...
Kids Learning - Photo Touch Concepts
Education and Games
App
"Learning concepts has never been this fun. My kids and students love this game!" Kathy Fox ...
Planescape: Torment
Games
1.0
Rate It
App
Reviewers say: "Planescape: Torment is a wonderful game, and its Enhanced Edition is a splendid,...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The length of time it’s taken me to catch this one at the cinema belies my lukewarm interest in the material: I’m not a ‘fan boy’ for either Marvel or DC properties. As it turns out, writer/director David “Fury” Ayer’s Suicide Squad is just plain frustrating in cinematic terms.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.