Search
Search results
Sugar Daddy Meet
Social Networking and Entertainment
1.0
Rate It
App
SugarDaddyMeet is the best sugar daddy dating app for young women seeking mutual arrangements with...
Sea Dragon's Hunger (The Fada Shapeshifter #4.5)
8.0
Rate It
Book
A child in danger. A second chance at love. Four years ago, Irish shifter Cassidy O’Byrne fell...
Paranormal Romance
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated I'd Give Anything in Books
Jun 11, 2020
At eighteen, Ginny "Zinny" Beale is a lighthearted, fun, brave girl with a close group of friends and brother with whom she can unite against their uptight mother. But one night changes all of that. Someone sets the town's high school on fire and in the aftermath, the father of Ginny's best friend, Gray, is dead. The townspeople look for someone to blame--leaving most of it on a troubled teen--but Ginny learns some news that changes her entire world. She tells no one, but the secret alters her life and leaves her an outcast among her friends and family. Over the next twenty years, Ginny transitions, settling down, returning to her hometown and marrying Harris, a professor. They have a daughter, Avery, and Ginny cares for her mother, who is dying. But when scandal rocks the town again--this time focused on Harris--Ginny has to make some choices. It's time to confront the past and the secret she's kept buried all this time.
"In one night, one night, I lost all of them."
I adore Marisa de los Santos and her writing, though this wasn't my favorite of her books. Still, she's just so good at capturing the little moments in life: nailing down the feelings and emotions of her characters. Ginny, Avery, and others spring to life in this one. The story swings between past and present, with older excerpts often told from Ginny's diary entries. It takes a while to learn Ginny's big secret, which is a bit of a pet peeve of mine: I'm not always a fan of dragging out a secret.
This is a poignant and sad read, delving into marriage, love, and parenthood. My favorite character was fifteen-year-old Avery, who is hit hard by the incident involving her father, Harris. In many ways, I was far more invested in Avery's growth than Ginny's--I liked Ginny, but I couldn't quite find myself fully wanting to root for her. Although the juxtaposition between young Zinny and present-day Ginny was quite well-done.
Did you stop being your old selves? Did they fall away? Were you always only the self you were in the present?
The book explores how one secret can so change a person and the ripple effect it has on many lives. Ms. de los Santos examines her characters very closely via her writing, and I will always love picking up her books and getting an intimate look at her cast of players. In the end, this is a touching and well-written novel, even if I couldn't always find myself fully engaged in Ginny's world. 3.75 stars, rounded to 4 here.
"In one night, one night, I lost all of them."
I adore Marisa de los Santos and her writing, though this wasn't my favorite of her books. Still, she's just so good at capturing the little moments in life: nailing down the feelings and emotions of her characters. Ginny, Avery, and others spring to life in this one. The story swings between past and present, with older excerpts often told from Ginny's diary entries. It takes a while to learn Ginny's big secret, which is a bit of a pet peeve of mine: I'm not always a fan of dragging out a secret.
This is a poignant and sad read, delving into marriage, love, and parenthood. My favorite character was fifteen-year-old Avery, who is hit hard by the incident involving her father, Harris. In many ways, I was far more invested in Avery's growth than Ginny's--I liked Ginny, but I couldn't quite find myself fully wanting to root for her. Although the juxtaposition between young Zinny and present-day Ginny was quite well-done.
Did you stop being your old selves? Did they fall away? Were you always only the self you were in the present?
The book explores how one secret can so change a person and the ripple effect it has on many lives. Ms. de los Santos examines her characters very closely via her writing, and I will always love picking up her books and getting an intimate look at her cast of players. In the end, this is a touching and well-written novel, even if I couldn't always find myself fully engaged in Ginny's world. 3.75 stars, rounded to 4 here.
Juliette Jackson recommended track This Is the Day by The The in Soul Mining by The The in Music (curated)
8.3
Album
Favorite
Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated Devil's Due in Books
Sep 6, 2019
3.5 stars.
So I finally finished it and it was a good conclusion to the duet.
I grew to like Lucia but I still feel we didn't learn as much about her as we did Jazz in the first book, she's still a bit of a mystery in regards to her previous work. She's done work for the government? Very vague, Lucia.
As for Ben, I really liked him too. He came across as being a really nice guy in the end, though some of his decisions seemed a little doubtful at times. And his feelings for Lucia were sweet.
It was great to see Jazz, Borden, Manny and Pansy in this one too; like seeing the Red Letter Days family back together again. There were a few other reappearances too and some new characters that we came to know and lost.
The storyline was a continuation of the first but at the same time there were different crimes to investigate and cases to work. Different ways for them to get shot and into trouble, and I think they found every single one lol.
Once again, I'll say this isn't the usual Rachel Caine book. It doesn't have a particularly paranormal feel. It's more P.I firm getting mixed up with some psychics about the fate of the world with some kick arse heroines as the P.I.'s.
I liked it anyway!
So I finally finished it and it was a good conclusion to the duet.
I grew to like Lucia but I still feel we didn't learn as much about her as we did Jazz in the first book, she's still a bit of a mystery in regards to her previous work. She's done work for the government? Very vague, Lucia.
As for Ben, I really liked him too. He came across as being a really nice guy in the end, though some of his decisions seemed a little doubtful at times. And his feelings for Lucia were sweet.
It was great to see Jazz, Borden, Manny and Pansy in this one too; like seeing the Red Letter Days family back together again. There were a few other reappearances too and some new characters that we came to know and lost.
The storyline was a continuation of the first but at the same time there were different crimes to investigate and cases to work. Different ways for them to get shot and into trouble, and I think they found every single one lol.
Once again, I'll say this isn't the usual Rachel Caine book. It doesn't have a particularly paranormal feel. It's more P.I firm getting mixed up with some psychics about the fate of the world with some kick arse heroines as the P.I.'s.
I liked it anyway!
Ross (3284 KP) rated Season of Storms in Books
Apr 23, 2018 (Updated Apr 25, 2018)
2-d characters (2 more)
fantasy-by-numbers
Frequent incongruent Latin/French phrases
More a set of short stories than a novel in its own right
* I received an advance copy of this book from NetGalley in return for an honest review. Formatting issues (many) have not been factored into the review *
To my knowledge, the books of The Witcher are split into the short story collection prequels (one of which I have read) and the full books (which I have not read). This book is somewhere in between being neither strictly a collection of short stories nor a focussed standalone novel in its own right. Chronologically, this book falls in between the stories contained in The Last Wish) though it is impossible to say quite where it falls (as mention of the stryga is made near the end, which begins the Last Wish I have to assume it comes after the flashback stories from that tome but before the overarching story linking them all).
It may be because I haven't read the full novels, but I find the Witcher to be a thoroughly bland and unexciting character and I have no connection with him. He has next to no personality and contributes nothing to the dialogue of the book. Similarly, all other characters are very disposable - they are either supposedly strong-willed sorceresses (who smell of flowers and throw themselves at the Witcher and are bedded instantly) or they are otherwise instantly forgettable.
I think Sapkwoski was trying to give the sorcerers a sense of academic snobbery but they frequently use Latin phrases, which just gets irritating very quickly. Similarly French words and phrases are thrown in willy-nilly without translation which gets annoying as well. This seems even more unusual when you realise the story was written in Polish and translated into English, with some parts kept in French or Latin. And then further when it is meant to be in a different world where French wouldn't be a thing.
The story essentially follows Geralt of Rivia (The Witcher) who loses his swords and goes on a quest to get them back, and just happens along the way to meet people who need his skills (like on Neighbours where one character leaves and another comes in through the door at exactly the same moment). This aspect makes me think this was meant to be a series of short stories stitched together. But unfortunately here those short stories are not finished up within themselves and you have a number of unsatisfying loose ends in the back of your head throughout.
As with The Last Wish, I found the ending very confusing and had no idea what had happened. It may be that other works fill in the gap and I will have that filled in time, but if so that makes this not a satisfying read in its own right.
Overall, I don't mind Sapkowski's writing in general, other than a few irritating bad habits and I like the overriding idea of the stories but find the execution, character development and overall world-building somewhat clumsy and throw-away. But as I say, this may be because (I think) I have read these in chronological order, rather than published order. I will fill in the gaps and work out if that is the case.
To my knowledge, the books of The Witcher are split into the short story collection prequels (one of which I have read) and the full books (which I have not read). This book is somewhere in between being neither strictly a collection of short stories nor a focussed standalone novel in its own right. Chronologically, this book falls in between the stories contained in The Last Wish) though it is impossible to say quite where it falls (as mention of the stryga is made near the end, which begins the Last Wish I have to assume it comes after the flashback stories from that tome but before the overarching story linking them all).
It may be because I haven't read the full novels, but I find the Witcher to be a thoroughly bland and unexciting character and I have no connection with him. He has next to no personality and contributes nothing to the dialogue of the book. Similarly, all other characters are very disposable - they are either supposedly strong-willed sorceresses (who smell of flowers and throw themselves at the Witcher and are bedded instantly) or they are otherwise instantly forgettable.
I think Sapkwoski was trying to give the sorcerers a sense of academic snobbery but they frequently use Latin phrases, which just gets irritating very quickly. Similarly French words and phrases are thrown in willy-nilly without translation which gets annoying as well. This seems even more unusual when you realise the story was written in Polish and translated into English, with some parts kept in French or Latin. And then further when it is meant to be in a different world where French wouldn't be a thing.
The story essentially follows Geralt of Rivia (The Witcher) who loses his swords and goes on a quest to get them back, and just happens along the way to meet people who need his skills (like on Neighbours where one character leaves and another comes in through the door at exactly the same moment). This aspect makes me think this was meant to be a series of short stories stitched together. But unfortunately here those short stories are not finished up within themselves and you have a number of unsatisfying loose ends in the back of your head throughout.
As with The Last Wish, I found the ending very confusing and had no idea what had happened. It may be that other works fill in the gap and I will have that filled in time, but if so that makes this not a satisfying read in its own right.
Overall, I don't mind Sapkowski's writing in general, other than a few irritating bad habits and I like the overriding idea of the stories but find the execution, character development and overall world-building somewhat clumsy and throw-away. But as I say, this may be because (I think) I have read these in chronological order, rather than published order. I will fill in the gaps and work out if that is the case.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Chosen Ones in Books
Jul 21, 2021
Writing (3 more)
Inconsistencies
Constantly stopping the story
Stereo-typical character
What usually draws readers into a hero versus villain story is to see the hero's fight to victory. The struggle, the refusal to back down - - - we usually put ourselves into this character and root for them to win at any cost. But the Chosen Ones starts us off after our heroes are victorious in the battle against the villain. The heroes are trying to cope with every day life after achieving the most important thing they would ever accomplish, but memories of the war against the Dark One keep them from returning to that normal life.
Sloane is our main character - - - one of the five heroes that was picked by a prophecy years ago to take down the Dark One. One of the effects of battling the villain for her is she now endures PTSD-induced nightmares. We meet her in the midst of one of these nightmares, where she nearly stabs her boyfriend, Matt (also one of the five heroes), with a kitchen knife. And this isn't the first time this has happened: it happens enough that Sloane was put on medication to help with her PTSD, as well as going to therapy.
But with the ten year anniversary of the Dark One's defeat looming ahead, life seems to be getting even harder for the heroes. All the heroes want is to move on and forget the war had ever happened - - - but then something happens that causes them to relive the Dark One's fight all over again.
The heroes end up on a magic-using world called Genetrix where a man going by the name the Resurrectionist is causing the same destruction as the Dark One did on their world. Disoriented and curious, the heroes have no choice but to believe the two main magic users who brought them there, Aelia and Nero. The two seem to be the ones in charge of finding the chosen one to take down the Resurrectionist. But soon after the heroes agree to take down this world's Dark One, they begin to believe that Aelia and Nero are hiding information from them.
The heroes decide to focus on learning to use magic, so they can defend themselves on this world. With the help of siphons, the heroes are able to begin practicing magic for their fight with the Resurrectionist. . . but for Sloane, she is unable to get her siphon to work, instead, she contains an ability that came from a cursed object from their world, a cursed object that wants her back.
This book contains a lot of the problems that went on during 2020, possibly too many of them. Unlike most books released last year, Chosen Ones didn't do a well enough job of hiding reality in plain sight. Chosen Ones also made the mistake of cutting up the story with intermissions of newspaper articles and government reports. Divergent author Veronica Roth disrupted the flow of the story by doing such that it felt like the story continuously came to a stand still.
Chosen Ones also plays up the Young Adult genre tropes. The relationship between Sloane and Mox happens so quickly that it isn't believable to the reader, and the result is awkward to the point of embarrassing. Also, the friendship between the heroes is very flat, so much so that when conflict arises, I was left believing that no one cared if the other one died.
But it was the idea of the story that hooked me as a reader - - - movies, television shows, and other novels normally focus on the heroes during the great fight with the villain, allowing readers to live the war and pick the fighter they want to win. In this novel, the connection with the heroes is severely lacking, especially when the only character development happens to Sloane. Very reminiscent of Mira Grant's 'Feed,' I couldn't bring myself to like the main character. Sloane tries too hard to be a strong and independent woman, she comes off as a teenager trapped in an adult woman's body, even Ines, one of the other female heroes, is a more well-put together character than Sloane is. This is the trope that is killing lead female characters in the Young Adult genre, but I suppose it's better than having the stereo-typical ditzy female lead characters most adult novels have.
Although the synopsis caused me to buy this book, I was really disappointed with the path in which Roth took it down. The biggest issue was how much of 2020's problems were shoved into one book because it took away from what this story could have been. The heroes are blatantly fighting Donald Trump aka the Dark One, and this subject has been done to-death so much that I couldn't get fully immersed into the story. They also fight against people who can do magic, including people who are apparently Wiccans - - - but Roth labels them as 'evil. ' Having known actually Wiccans in my life, I know that they believe in harming none. Roth's stereo-typing of anyone who is not her heroes shows a shallowness that is becoming more prevalent, unfortunately, in female writers.
Chosen Ones could have been so much more than what it was because it just ends up being another empty story that takes on today's problems just to sell a book. With inconsistencies and bad writing throughout, I can't recommend this book to anyone, but if you love YA tropes, then you'll love this one.
Sloane is our main character - - - one of the five heroes that was picked by a prophecy years ago to take down the Dark One. One of the effects of battling the villain for her is she now endures PTSD-induced nightmares. We meet her in the midst of one of these nightmares, where she nearly stabs her boyfriend, Matt (also one of the five heroes), with a kitchen knife. And this isn't the first time this has happened: it happens enough that Sloane was put on medication to help with her PTSD, as well as going to therapy.
But with the ten year anniversary of the Dark One's defeat looming ahead, life seems to be getting even harder for the heroes. All the heroes want is to move on and forget the war had ever happened - - - but then something happens that causes them to relive the Dark One's fight all over again.
The heroes end up on a magic-using world called Genetrix where a man going by the name the Resurrectionist is causing the same destruction as the Dark One did on their world. Disoriented and curious, the heroes have no choice but to believe the two main magic users who brought them there, Aelia and Nero. The two seem to be the ones in charge of finding the chosen one to take down the Resurrectionist. But soon after the heroes agree to take down this world's Dark One, they begin to believe that Aelia and Nero are hiding information from them.
The heroes decide to focus on learning to use magic, so they can defend themselves on this world. With the help of siphons, the heroes are able to begin practicing magic for their fight with the Resurrectionist. . . but for Sloane, she is unable to get her siphon to work, instead, she contains an ability that came from a cursed object from their world, a cursed object that wants her back.
This book contains a lot of the problems that went on during 2020, possibly too many of them. Unlike most books released last year, Chosen Ones didn't do a well enough job of hiding reality in plain sight. Chosen Ones also made the mistake of cutting up the story with intermissions of newspaper articles and government reports. Divergent author Veronica Roth disrupted the flow of the story by doing such that it felt like the story continuously came to a stand still.
Chosen Ones also plays up the Young Adult genre tropes. The relationship between Sloane and Mox happens so quickly that it isn't believable to the reader, and the result is awkward to the point of embarrassing. Also, the friendship between the heroes is very flat, so much so that when conflict arises, I was left believing that no one cared if the other one died.
But it was the idea of the story that hooked me as a reader - - - movies, television shows, and other novels normally focus on the heroes during the great fight with the villain, allowing readers to live the war and pick the fighter they want to win. In this novel, the connection with the heroes is severely lacking, especially when the only character development happens to Sloane. Very reminiscent of Mira Grant's 'Feed,' I couldn't bring myself to like the main character. Sloane tries too hard to be a strong and independent woman, she comes off as a teenager trapped in an adult woman's body, even Ines, one of the other female heroes, is a more well-put together character than Sloane is. This is the trope that is killing lead female characters in the Young Adult genre, but I suppose it's better than having the stereo-typical ditzy female lead characters most adult novels have.
Although the synopsis caused me to buy this book, I was really disappointed with the path in which Roth took it down. The biggest issue was how much of 2020's problems were shoved into one book because it took away from what this story could have been. The heroes are blatantly fighting Donald Trump aka the Dark One, and this subject has been done to-death so much that I couldn't get fully immersed into the story. They also fight against people who can do magic, including people who are apparently Wiccans - - - but Roth labels them as 'evil. ' Having known actually Wiccans in my life, I know that they believe in harming none. Roth's stereo-typing of anyone who is not her heroes shows a shallowness that is becoming more prevalent, unfortunately, in female writers.
Chosen Ones could have been so much more than what it was because it just ends up being another empty story that takes on today's problems just to sell a book. With inconsistencies and bad writing throughout, I can't recommend this book to anyone, but if you love YA tropes, then you'll love this one.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Not a very fun game
The horror film market is huge. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horror films are made every year, with only few standing out of the blood-drenched crowd. Netflix, with a penchant for outstanding horrors and thrillers, decided to hop on the horror flick train, bringing about an adaptation of Stephen King’s terrifying novel ‘Gerald’s Game’.
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
AAA+ Investor Magazine - An Entrepreneurs Guide to Trading and Investing in Silicon Valley Tech Startups, the Stock Market, Shares and Forex
Business and Magazines & Newspapers
3.0
Rate It
App
FREE to Download & FREE to Trial for a Full 30 Days! Who’s taking Silicon Valley and the World...