Search
Search results
F-Secure Freedome VPN
Productivity and Utilities
App
F-Secure Freedome VPN: PRIVATE. UNTRACKED. ANONYMOUS. Try for free. Starting from $5.99 a month. ...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Girls' Night Out in Books
Mar 10, 2019
Hokey & irritating, but has its intriguing moments
Natalie, Ashley, and Lauren have been friends since college, but lately their friendship has been showing a lot of strain. In fact, the trio has been estranged from Lauren for a year. So Ashley gets the idea for a girls' trip to Tulum, Mexico to help repair their friendship and mend fences. But once there, they find that fixing things isn't so easy. Each woman brings so much baggage and anger to the friendship. Natalie is angry at Ashley regarding the beauty business, BloMe, that they founded together. Lauren holds a grudge with Ashley relating to the death of her husband, Geoff. Both Natalie and Lauren are angry at themselves for letting their worlds revolve around Ashley. And their anger simmers even more when Ashley starts spending more time with Marco, a man she meets in Mexico, then with them. Suddenly, Ashley disappears. Did she run away with Marco? Was she kidnapped? Or--Natalie and Lauren fear--did they snap in anger at Ashley and harm her?
I had never read anything by the Fenton and Steinke writing team but had heard good things, so decided to try this one out. Its format takes a little getting used to: it switches in both time and narration, so you'll get Ashley, three days before the disappearance, and then the next chapter could be Lauren, two days after the disappearance. Once you get in the groove, it works pretty well, and builds suspense fairly effectively. Pieces of the story are slowly revealed, as we both don't know what happened to divide the friends in their friendship and, of course, don't know what happened to make Ashley disappear.
Honestly, I had just enough curiosity to find out what happened to Ashley that kept me reading. This was an interesting novel and certainly tense and intriguing, but I couldn't muster much interest or sympathy in these characters. Man, these women were just awful! I would not want a single one of them as my friend, that's for sure. Their friendship problems seemed petty, overblown, and childish, and I lost patience and interest with their myriad issues. There was just so much constant bickering. Bickering, drinking, more fighting, drinking, some more fighting. Ugh. They were so overly dramatic and even worse, most of the chapters would end with a sentence that had such an overblown "dramatic flair" to it that I found myself rolling my eyes at times.
A lot of the book just felt hokey, and I found myself wanting them to just go home and get their own lives (although their husbands didn't seem much better, honestly). Still, as mentioned, the reveals are interesting, and there is enough interest in what happened to Ashley to keep you reading. If you can get past the irritating characters, you'll be intrigued, albeit potentially annoyed.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
I had never read anything by the Fenton and Steinke writing team but had heard good things, so decided to try this one out. Its format takes a little getting used to: it switches in both time and narration, so you'll get Ashley, three days before the disappearance, and then the next chapter could be Lauren, two days after the disappearance. Once you get in the groove, it works pretty well, and builds suspense fairly effectively. Pieces of the story are slowly revealed, as we both don't know what happened to divide the friends in their friendship and, of course, don't know what happened to make Ashley disappear.
Honestly, I had just enough curiosity to find out what happened to Ashley that kept me reading. This was an interesting novel and certainly tense and intriguing, but I couldn't muster much interest or sympathy in these characters. Man, these women were just awful! I would not want a single one of them as my friend, that's for sure. Their friendship problems seemed petty, overblown, and childish, and I lost patience and interest with their myriad issues. There was just so much constant bickering. Bickering, drinking, more fighting, drinking, some more fighting. Ugh. They were so overly dramatic and even worse, most of the chapters would end with a sentence that had such an overblown "dramatic flair" to it that I found myself rolling my eyes at times.
A lot of the book just felt hokey, and I found myself wanting them to just go home and get their own lives (although their husbands didn't seem much better, honestly). Still, as mentioned, the reveals are interesting, and there is enough interest in what happened to Ashley to keep you reading. If you can get past the irritating characters, you'll be intrigued, albeit potentially annoyed.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated S. Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Samantha Darko, or Sam as she goes by, just wants to feel like a normal person. Back where she's from, Virginia, she feels like everyone knows everything about her yet that she's invisible at the same time. She'd change places with somebody if she could. Somehow start all over. Nothing has been the same for her since her brother, Donnie, died seven years ago and she is consumed with the same outlandish visions Donnie had. She decides to go on a road trip with her friend, Corey, to California in hopes of working for Corey's dad. Their car breaks down along the way and they wind up in a small town called Conejo Springs. This is where the world will end in four days, seventeen hours, twenty six minutes, and thirty one seconds.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
The Times of London: World News, Sports & Election
News and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Enjoy The Times of London quality journalism anywhere with one app, 7 days a week. Download the app...
European iAIP
Navigation and Education
App
eiAIP allows users to: •Browse AIP information and SUP of the respective State •Get TAF,METAR,...
The Times & The Sunday Times: World News & Sports
News and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Enjoy quality journalism from The Times and The Sunday Times anywhere with one app, seven days a...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Payback (1999) in Movies
Jul 15, 2020
Get Ready To Root For The Bad Guy
Payback- is a intresting revenge action thriller. Maybe its me, but i fell like this movie is boring. Its good, but some what boring, like nothing going on. Also its kinda of confusing, again it might just be me, but i fell like its confusing as well. Like i said before its good, but in the end its both boring and confusing.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Lost Angel in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book had almost too much going on, with an extensive glossary in the beginning pages - complete with color photos - that I needed to read beforehand to keep up with the plot. Javier Sierra made a point of mixing fact with fiction in this novel, and the book reads like an extensive 'conspiracy theory.' My husband is much more familiar with many aspects of the plot, and I often asked him if what I was reading about was really true or not. The book opens with a quotation of Genesis 6: 2-3, which states "...the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.'" This is followed by a quote from John Dee, who figures prominently in the plot, though I did not find the quote to be especially inspiring.
The main focus of the book is about a group of people who consider themselves descendants of those angels that joined with "the daughters of man," and want to find a way to get back into heaven. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this -- murder, deceit, even putting the whole planet in jeopardy.
The main character, Julia Alvarez, is a psychic who is completely duped by their antics. I understand that the author means for the reader to feel sympathy for the angelic descendants through Julia's narration, but the way that Julia allows herself to be used and deceived by even her own husband disgusts me. She believes whatever they tell her and does not question anything. In fact, anyone that does question this main family is characterized as foolish and forgettable, such as Ellen Watson and Inspector Figueiras.
There was one main problem I had with the plot, which is that in the Bible, the angels that mate with human women are 'fallen' because they disobeyed God, which is never addressed. What is also never addressed is any scriptural substantiation for what they believed about Noah and the ark. They believed they could force God to take them back into heaven with their thrown-together mish-mash of technology. How is that believable? God kicked the angels out - they certainly can't force their way back in! Not to mention, this family does not back up their belief that they are descendants of angels with actual scientific proof, such as DNA tests, even though they all claim to be men (and woman) of science.
Overall, the book twists a blasphemous tale of Biblical scripture, using factual information to support a fictitious plot. It has suspense, intrigue, and even a bit of romance, but the end is neither believable nor enjoyable. While books of this nature became popular thanks to the works of Dan Brown, (yes, I've read his stuff, too), I found this book to be merely an okay read.
The main focus of the book is about a group of people who consider themselves descendants of those angels that joined with "the daughters of man," and want to find a way to get back into heaven. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this -- murder, deceit, even putting the whole planet in jeopardy.
The main character, Julia Alvarez, is a psychic who is completely duped by their antics. I understand that the author means for the reader to feel sympathy for the angelic descendants through Julia's narration, but the way that Julia allows herself to be used and deceived by even her own husband disgusts me. She believes whatever they tell her and does not question anything. In fact, anyone that does question this main family is characterized as foolish and forgettable, such as Ellen Watson and Inspector Figueiras.
There was one main problem I had with the plot, which is that in the Bible, the angels that mate with human women are 'fallen' because they disobeyed God, which is never addressed. What is also never addressed is any scriptural substantiation for what they believed about Noah and the ark. They believed they could force God to take them back into heaven with their thrown-together mish-mash of technology. How is that believable? God kicked the angels out - they certainly can't force their way back in! Not to mention, this family does not back up their belief that they are descendants of angels with actual scientific proof, such as DNA tests, even though they all claim to be men (and woman) of science.
Overall, the book twists a blasphemous tale of Biblical scripture, using factual information to support a fictitious plot. It has suspense, intrigue, and even a bit of romance, but the end is neither believable nor enjoyable. While books of this nature became popular thanks to the works of Dan Brown, (yes, I've read his stuff, too), I found this book to be merely an okay read.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The First Purge (2018) in Movies
Jul 9, 2018
Not sure why they bothered
The fourth movie in 'The Purge' series takes us right back to the beginning, introducing us to the days leading up to and including the very first purge. It's the weakest of the series, and while not exactly a bad movie, you're kind of left wondering why they even bothered.
The site of the new 'experiment' is Staten Island, NY, and in the run up to it's commencement we're introduced to quite a few of the locals, most of which aren't that memorable once the end credits have rolled. Some of them are angry, and looking to embrace this new way of being able to legally release their anger. Some are out to protect their illegal business interests, and some just want to keep their heads down and ride out the night with as little trouble as possible. In an effort to keep people on the island during the experiment, the NFFA offers $5,000 to anyone who does stick around for the night. And, if they actually participate in the purge, they'll get a nice bonus! Glowing contact lenses containing tiny cameras are on offer to those that do wish to partake, allowing their movements and actions to be tracked and seen by all, and providing a suitably creepy effect when worn out in the dark.
Unfortunately though, purge night doesn't get off to a great start. While most streets are clear, a number of block parties start up, and the only murder that takes place has been by the local crazy guy on drugs. So, they decide to stir things up a bit by sending in trained teams, disguised as locals, in an attempt to incite violence. When this happens, and innocent lives are lost, local drug boss Dmitri and his team of dealers decide to take things into their own hands. With their arsenal of automatic weapons, they seem surprisingly well trained in the art of taking out the mercenaries, and this is where the movie is at it's most enjoyable. As Dmitri strips down to his white vest and heads into the tower block where a number of bad guys are sweeping each floor, taking out innocents as they go, we get some fantastic action sequences. It's all very reminiscent of The Raid, with a dash of Die Hard thrown in. Close quarters stairwell fighting, gun fights, explosions, all beautifully choreographed and ramping up the tension as the bad guys near the 14th floor, where many of the characters introduced earlier in the movie are all holed up.
Sadly, this intense and thrilling action only features in the last 20 minutes or so and isn't enough to pull this back from being just a so-so movie, only adding to the overall imbalance of it all.
The site of the new 'experiment' is Staten Island, NY, and in the run up to it's commencement we're introduced to quite a few of the locals, most of which aren't that memorable once the end credits have rolled. Some of them are angry, and looking to embrace this new way of being able to legally release their anger. Some are out to protect their illegal business interests, and some just want to keep their heads down and ride out the night with as little trouble as possible. In an effort to keep people on the island during the experiment, the NFFA offers $5,000 to anyone who does stick around for the night. And, if they actually participate in the purge, they'll get a nice bonus! Glowing contact lenses containing tiny cameras are on offer to those that do wish to partake, allowing their movements and actions to be tracked and seen by all, and providing a suitably creepy effect when worn out in the dark.
Unfortunately though, purge night doesn't get off to a great start. While most streets are clear, a number of block parties start up, and the only murder that takes place has been by the local crazy guy on drugs. So, they decide to stir things up a bit by sending in trained teams, disguised as locals, in an attempt to incite violence. When this happens, and innocent lives are lost, local drug boss Dmitri and his team of dealers decide to take things into their own hands. With their arsenal of automatic weapons, they seem surprisingly well trained in the art of taking out the mercenaries, and this is where the movie is at it's most enjoyable. As Dmitri strips down to his white vest and heads into the tower block where a number of bad guys are sweeping each floor, taking out innocents as they go, we get some fantastic action sequences. It's all very reminiscent of The Raid, with a dash of Die Hard thrown in. Close quarters stairwell fighting, gun fights, explosions, all beautifully choreographed and ramping up the tension as the bad guys near the 14th floor, where many of the characters introduced earlier in the movie are all holed up.
Sadly, this intense and thrilling action only features in the last 20 minutes or so and isn't enough to pull this back from being just a so-so movie, only adding to the overall imbalance of it all.