Search
Tamsin Clark (15 KP) rated Facebook in Apps
Jan 20, 2018
Ability to keep in touch (2 more)
Pages for groups and local business
Ability to add photos and movies
Messenger and Facebook separate apps (6 more)
Facebook pushes their agenda
Adverts and content montoring
Report system only acknowledges what it wants
Enables cyber bullying
Site changes harmed small business
'Fake news' is a thing.
How much fear would you like today?
I used to really enjoy using Facebook, but over the years I've watched the site and the app(s) sink further and further into the doldrums of commercialism and sly financial gain. It's now easier to be reported and banned for making a nonsensical sentence than it is for threatening to kill someone. Pictures of female nipples are immediately banned but pictures of people torturing animals aren't.
Business pages have to pay to be seen and if they make posts and don't pay for them, they find their reach grossly reduced. Certain news outlets are encouraged and bolstered while others are all but hidden, and the 'trending' news always shows the very worst of the worst stories. There is also a lot of this 'fake news' around, where articles will show up with stories that are entirely untrue but made to look real, which takes even more time to research than it does to read in the first place. I'd say another 50% of posts are clickbait too. Feeds have been altered over and over again to the point that they're now almost impossible to customise to see what YOU want to see and not what Facebook wants you to see. And all the while, each click you make, each comment you write is read by the site and used to customise adverts and content to you, whether you like it or not. Even in messenger.
When it comes to content, Facebook does provide a good amount. On a personal level, if you restricted your feed to ONLY people you know in person and they didn't join any groups or flood your feed with game updates, then it would be a fine site to use for actual social interaction. It's possible to upload multiple images and videos, use links to display pages, media or otherwise that are of interest. You can set up alerts too but beware of being inundated by a million alerts every moment. There is a messaging service too; if you use a browser then it's all on the same site but if you use the apps, you have to have a separate app for Facebook and messenger and they don't work together, even though the Facebook app has a messenger icon as part of its design. It takes up a LOT of room on a phone, especially if you don't have much to start with. Also, if you block someone on messenger (even for a laugh) it automatically unfriends you on Facebook, yet supposedly the two are not connected so go figure.
I recently stopped using the site. I have a profile still as I have a lot of images and life events that I want to keep but I now barely browse once a week. Every thread descended into an argument, too many people use it as a troll hub to release the tensions of their unhappy lives on others while avoiding all responsibility for it. It ended up a bad way to waste time and made my anxiety issues a lot worse too.
Business pages have to pay to be seen and if they make posts and don't pay for them, they find their reach grossly reduced. Certain news outlets are encouraged and bolstered while others are all but hidden, and the 'trending' news always shows the very worst of the worst stories. There is also a lot of this 'fake news' around, where articles will show up with stories that are entirely untrue but made to look real, which takes even more time to research than it does to read in the first place. I'd say another 50% of posts are clickbait too. Feeds have been altered over and over again to the point that they're now almost impossible to customise to see what YOU want to see and not what Facebook wants you to see. And all the while, each click you make, each comment you write is read by the site and used to customise adverts and content to you, whether you like it or not. Even in messenger.
When it comes to content, Facebook does provide a good amount. On a personal level, if you restricted your feed to ONLY people you know in person and they didn't join any groups or flood your feed with game updates, then it would be a fine site to use for actual social interaction. It's possible to upload multiple images and videos, use links to display pages, media or otherwise that are of interest. You can set up alerts too but beware of being inundated by a million alerts every moment. There is a messaging service too; if you use a browser then it's all on the same site but if you use the apps, you have to have a separate app for Facebook and messenger and they don't work together, even though the Facebook app has a messenger icon as part of its design. It takes up a LOT of room on a phone, especially if you don't have much to start with. Also, if you block someone on messenger (even for a laugh) it automatically unfriends you on Facebook, yet supposedly the two are not connected so go figure.
I recently stopped using the site. I have a profile still as I have a lot of images and life events that I want to keep but I now barely browse once a week. Every thread descended into an argument, too many people use it as a troll hub to release the tensions of their unhappy lives on others while avoiding all responsibility for it. It ended up a bad way to waste time and made my anxiety issues a lot worse too.
Tata CLiQ -Online Shopping App
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
Shop Real Good Brands at Feel Good Prices with Tata CLiQ’s online shopping iOS App. We offer...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lost Daughter (2021) in Movies
Feb 17, 2022
Strong Acting and Direction
The nice thing about being fanatical about catching all of the Oscar Nominated films in the “Major” categories is that it forces me to watch films that, normally, my interests would not gravitate towards - and, most of the time, I am rewarded and my mind and emotions are expanded because of this.
Such is the case with THE LOST DAUGHTER, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film Directing debut (she is also Oscar nominated for Adapted Screenplay) that follows the emotional journey of a College Professor (the great Olivia Colman) on Holiday in Greece who is forced to confront her past decisions amidst the emotional toil that these decisions have created.
Normally, these introspective, “Art House” films are not my cup of tea and during the first half of this film, I did find myself wandering a bit. This is because Colman’s character of Leda arrives on-screen at the onset of this film heavy with emotional (almost crippling so) baggage and it is almost too much to bear…which is the point. The movie, then, peels the layers back slowly to reveal why.
It is, yet again, a tour-de-force performance by Colman - who just might win ANOTHER Oscar for this work - it is that strong without being show-offey (if that is a word). Colman becomes Leda and delves strongly into the introspection, guilt, hurt and confusion that this character has. She allows the character to breathe (sometimes in gulps of crying). It is the type of character (and performance) that film today rarely allows time for on screen.
Credit for this has to go to Directer/ScreenWriter Maggie Gyllenhaal who adapted Elana Ferrante’s novel into a quiet, retrospective film. The adaptation works well for someone who has no prior knowledge of the novel and the direction and camerawork of this film is unwavering in it’s look into a character that is flawed and at times unlikeable. It is a strong Directorial and Screenwriting debut for Gyllenhaal.
Jessie Buckley is also Oscar nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) for her role as the younger Leda - a character who’s actions strongly affect the older Leda. While this character is not as nuanced as Colman’s version of Leda, she still is strong and Buckley’s performance is just as confident, self-centered, and fierce showing the roots of the person that would become Colman’s character. This is only the 3rd time in Oscars history that 2 actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing younger and older versions of the same person (Kate Winslet/Gloria Stewart playing Rose in TITANIC and Kate Winslet/Judi Dench playing Iris in IRIS).
Ed Harris shows up as the proprietor of the space that Leda is renting in Greece and is a welcome presence (as always). The surprises to me in this film were the performances of Dakota Johnson and Jack Farthing. Johnson is proving that she is more than just the “50 SHADES” girl and spars with Colman quite well, more than holding her own. Farthing, who played the cold and distant Prince Charles in SPENCER is the husband of the younger Leda and he is the polar opposite of Prince Charles - open, loving and emotional. It is fun to see 2 clearly differing performances by the same actor. Farthing is someone to keep an eye on.
As is Gyllenhaal, Colman and THE LOST DAUGHTER. It is a strong piece of film-making and not an easy watch. But, if you can click into the emotion of this flawed character - and stick with this film through the ugliness and mistakes that Leda selfishly makes, you will be rewarded with a character study, the likes of which is rare in film today.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with THE LOST DAUGHTER, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film Directing debut (she is also Oscar nominated for Adapted Screenplay) that follows the emotional journey of a College Professor (the great Olivia Colman) on Holiday in Greece who is forced to confront her past decisions amidst the emotional toil that these decisions have created.
Normally, these introspective, “Art House” films are not my cup of tea and during the first half of this film, I did find myself wandering a bit. This is because Colman’s character of Leda arrives on-screen at the onset of this film heavy with emotional (almost crippling so) baggage and it is almost too much to bear…which is the point. The movie, then, peels the layers back slowly to reveal why.
It is, yet again, a tour-de-force performance by Colman - who just might win ANOTHER Oscar for this work - it is that strong without being show-offey (if that is a word). Colman becomes Leda and delves strongly into the introspection, guilt, hurt and confusion that this character has. She allows the character to breathe (sometimes in gulps of crying). It is the type of character (and performance) that film today rarely allows time for on screen.
Credit for this has to go to Directer/ScreenWriter Maggie Gyllenhaal who adapted Elana Ferrante’s novel into a quiet, retrospective film. The adaptation works well for someone who has no prior knowledge of the novel and the direction and camerawork of this film is unwavering in it’s look into a character that is flawed and at times unlikeable. It is a strong Directorial and Screenwriting debut for Gyllenhaal.
Jessie Buckley is also Oscar nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) for her role as the younger Leda - a character who’s actions strongly affect the older Leda. While this character is not as nuanced as Colman’s version of Leda, she still is strong and Buckley’s performance is just as confident, self-centered, and fierce showing the roots of the person that would become Colman’s character. This is only the 3rd time in Oscars history that 2 actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing younger and older versions of the same person (Kate Winslet/Gloria Stewart playing Rose in TITANIC and Kate Winslet/Judi Dench playing Iris in IRIS).
Ed Harris shows up as the proprietor of the space that Leda is renting in Greece and is a welcome presence (as always). The surprises to me in this film were the performances of Dakota Johnson and Jack Farthing. Johnson is proving that she is more than just the “50 SHADES” girl and spars with Colman quite well, more than holding her own. Farthing, who played the cold and distant Prince Charles in SPENCER is the husband of the younger Leda and he is the polar opposite of Prince Charles - open, loving and emotional. It is fun to see 2 clearly differing performances by the same actor. Farthing is someone to keep an eye on.
As is Gyllenhaal, Colman and THE LOST DAUGHTER. It is a strong piece of film-making and not an easy watch. But, if you can click into the emotion of this flawed character - and stick with this film through the ugliness and mistakes that Leda selfishly makes, you will be rewarded with a character study, the likes of which is rare in film today.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Stumptown: The Case of the Girl Who Took Her Shampoo: Volume 1 in Books
May 21, 2020
After spotting in the trailer for the TV adaptation that it was based on a book I nipped off to order it straight away... I think it's great that people can see the potential in books that will make an interesting adaptation, with Stumptown I find that particularly impressive because I didn't find it that gripping. This first volume is four issues with one storyline and beyond that there are three more books which I haven't read, potentially there are things I picked up on that are resolved in later volumes. If that is the case though it's a bit of a problem for me because I don't really want to read any more of them.
I found the characters to be mostly non-descript both in the story and visually. On my first read-through I kept having to pop back a few pages and rereading when I lost track of who was who in a scene. It sadly didn't get much clearer on my second read-through.
Our main character is Dex Parios, a PI with a gambling problem. From the very beginning she isn't painted as a very likeable person, it's more than just some of the personality traits, she's been created as a gungho, mildly sex-driven, incompetent woman. At one point I put the book down because she was getting beaten up again with seemingly no real point. There's an almost leering quality to her (as well as other characters) in the illustrations and the inference from the text, as the only character that we really get to know this doesn't make compelling reading.
The storyline runs around the disappearance of a girl, her grandmother who runs the casino Dex is in debt to asks her to investigate and bring her back. That was perfectly introduced, though it took up a lot of pages, but other parts of the story don't click. As I said, I've read the book twice and still can't remember the reason for the second major part of the story... it feels very cloak and dagger which is perhaps why it wasn't very engaging.
Illustrations in comics/graphic novels are either hit or miss for me. The lettering here is pretty standard and managed to be clear and well laid out which was a great boost as sometimes it can get very chunky making it difficult to read. With the illustrations themselves you've got a nice colour palette that changes with the scenes and definitely helps move things along. Beyond that though I'm ultimately not a fan of the finished style, there's not enough differentiation between the characters and, as I mentioned above, it made for a difficult first read.
As an overall story there's something in it but it's a real challenge to like the characters, there wasn't anyone who I was looking forward to seeing again. Dex is given what feels like token bisexuality, it's not expressly pointed out but it's hinted at in a variety of ways. Her sexuality in general is quite heavy handed and I wouldn't be surprised if later down the line we find out she's slept with most of the recurring characters.
After I finished my first reading of Stumptown I messaged a friend... "It was bad and now I'm not sure I want to watch the series they made of it"... I pondered on that for a while because I was tired and maybe I was grumpy while reading it, the second reading came the next day, but even being more alert and less distracted by unfamiliar content I didn't get anything better out of this volume.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/based-on-stumptown.html
I found the characters to be mostly non-descript both in the story and visually. On my first read-through I kept having to pop back a few pages and rereading when I lost track of who was who in a scene. It sadly didn't get much clearer on my second read-through.
Our main character is Dex Parios, a PI with a gambling problem. From the very beginning she isn't painted as a very likeable person, it's more than just some of the personality traits, she's been created as a gungho, mildly sex-driven, incompetent woman. At one point I put the book down because she was getting beaten up again with seemingly no real point. There's an almost leering quality to her (as well as other characters) in the illustrations and the inference from the text, as the only character that we really get to know this doesn't make compelling reading.
The storyline runs around the disappearance of a girl, her grandmother who runs the casino Dex is in debt to asks her to investigate and bring her back. That was perfectly introduced, though it took up a lot of pages, but other parts of the story don't click. As I said, I've read the book twice and still can't remember the reason for the second major part of the story... it feels very cloak and dagger which is perhaps why it wasn't very engaging.
Illustrations in comics/graphic novels are either hit or miss for me. The lettering here is pretty standard and managed to be clear and well laid out which was a great boost as sometimes it can get very chunky making it difficult to read. With the illustrations themselves you've got a nice colour palette that changes with the scenes and definitely helps move things along. Beyond that though I'm ultimately not a fan of the finished style, there's not enough differentiation between the characters and, as I mentioned above, it made for a difficult first read.
As an overall story there's something in it but it's a real challenge to like the characters, there wasn't anyone who I was looking forward to seeing again. Dex is given what feels like token bisexuality, it's not expressly pointed out but it's hinted at in a variety of ways. Her sexuality in general is quite heavy handed and I wouldn't be surprised if later down the line we find out she's slept with most of the recurring characters.
After I finished my first reading of Stumptown I messaged a friend... "It was bad and now I'm not sure I want to watch the series they made of it"... I pondered on that for a while because I was tired and maybe I was grumpy while reading it, the second reading came the next day, but even being more alert and less distracted by unfamiliar content I didn't get anything better out of this volume.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/based-on-stumptown.html
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sanctuary in Books
Apr 27, 2018
rating: 3.8/5
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Every Other Day in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Warning: Spoilers ahead. And they'll probably be in all caps.
I have mixed feelings about Every Other Day.
The good:
It literally got my adrenaline pumping. Barnes has a good voice for YA novels.
I loved the protagonists and I hated the antagonists. I love Skylar, she's my favorite! I would want her to be my little sister. I love Bethany! (well, in a love-hate kind of way. I like her snark and her sarcasm.) I love Kali. She's totally my favorite kind of kick-ass heroine with supernatural powers.
The not so good:
I almost stopped reading this book a few times. Once right in the middle of chapter 2, because what was happening didn't really click with what the summary said was going to happen. I put it down for a while. When I finally picked it up again, it got exciting right at the end of that chapter.
I tore through it until right before the halfway mark, when something happened and I took it the wrong way and thought "oh no, she's turning into a vampire, it's one of THOSE books," and got really mad, and wanted to quit again. But I kept reading and discovered my assumption was incorrect. And then I read some more and I discovered that she was, indeed, part vampire. I mean, I guess I should have known what with the hourglass filled with blood. But seriously?
Point is, it was hard for me to read for an extended period of time, because I got frustrated.
I couldn't quite tell if it had a plot, or just a lot of events that happened. (See my post about plotless books here for more about that.)
It took me a good long time to get through it. For something so exciting, you would think it would be easier to read more than two or three chapters at a time. I'm not sure why: Maybe the drama was getting to my head and I just had to put it down.
WHAT THE CRAP IS WITH SKYLAR DYING OMIGOD SHE WAS MY FREAKING FAVORITE!!!!1 *breathes* okay Haley, you can handle this… be professional… *sobs and hits head against wall* Okay you can't just kill off a main character like that. Skylar was the reason I kept reading the book and then YOU KILLED HER.
VAMPIRE? REALLY? SERIOUSLY?? LIKE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH YOUNG ADULT VAMPIRE NOVELS OUT THERE, SOMEONE PLEASE WRITE SOMETHING ORIGINAL.
That was not an ending. It needed like, four more sentences. Also: the fact that it is totally the first book in a series? Gah. What's wrong with writing stand-alones?
Obviously, for me, there is more bad than good: but, it was addicting enough that I HAD to finish it.
So. You can decide if you want to read it or not. It really depends on your taste, and what you want in a YA novel.
Recommended for ages 14+
I have mixed feelings about Every Other Day.
The good:
It literally got my adrenaline pumping. Barnes has a good voice for YA novels.
I loved the protagonists and I hated the antagonists. I love Skylar, she's my favorite! I would want her to be my little sister. I love Bethany! (well, in a love-hate kind of way. I like her snark and her sarcasm.) I love Kali. She's totally my favorite kind of kick-ass heroine with supernatural powers.
The not so good:
I almost stopped reading this book a few times. Once right in the middle of chapter 2, because what was happening didn't really click with what the summary said was going to happen. I put it down for a while. When I finally picked it up again, it got exciting right at the end of that chapter.
I tore through it until right before the halfway mark, when something happened and I took it the wrong way and thought "oh no, she's turning into a vampire, it's one of THOSE books," and got really mad, and wanted to quit again. But I kept reading and discovered my assumption was incorrect. And then I read some more and I discovered that she was, indeed, part vampire. I mean, I guess I should have known what with the hourglass filled with blood. But seriously?
Point is, it was hard for me to read for an extended period of time, because I got frustrated.
I couldn't quite tell if it had a plot, or just a lot of events that happened. (See my post about plotless books here for more about that.)
It took me a good long time to get through it. For something so exciting, you would think it would be easier to read more than two or three chapters at a time. I'm not sure why: Maybe the drama was getting to my head and I just had to put it down.
WHAT THE CRAP IS WITH SKYLAR DYING OMIGOD SHE WAS MY FREAKING FAVORITE!!!!1 *breathes* okay Haley, you can handle this… be professional… *sobs and hits head against wall* Okay you can't just kill off a main character like that. Skylar was the reason I kept reading the book and then YOU KILLED HER.
VAMPIRE? REALLY? SERIOUSLY?? LIKE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH YOUNG ADULT VAMPIRE NOVELS OUT THERE, SOMEONE PLEASE WRITE SOMETHING ORIGINAL.
That was not an ending. It needed like, four more sentences. Also: the fact that it is totally the first book in a series? Gah. What's wrong with writing stand-alones?
Obviously, for me, there is more bad than good: but, it was addicting enough that I HAD to finish it.
So. You can decide if you want to read it or not. It really depends on your taste, and what you want in a YA novel.
Recommended for ages 14+
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King of Comedy (1983) in Movies
Jun 2, 2020
While I vaguely knew the name of the film I'd never seen it and didn't really get the vibe that I wanted to, after seeing the Joker though I was hit by so many comments on it in reviews that I really needed to see it.
Rupert Pupkin dreams of a life as a stand-up comic. Almost every night he's outside the local studio to see his idol Jerry Langford to try and get the big break that will launch his career. Rupert's obsession for success starts to completely run his life and with his newfound "friendship" with Jerry he becomes even more unstable and crosses a line there's no coming back from.
Before I comment on anything specific I want to point out that the rating of the film isn't really anything to do with its quality, it's more to do with me. I absolutely hate awkward comedy and awkwardness in general on screen, it makes me uncomfortable and I would much rather just leave that awkward feeling to my everyday life than have it in my downtime too.
The story idea is a solid one (if it hadn't been then I'm sure Joke would have done more original thinking) and the idea of obsessive fan culture is something I think all generations can get along with. Because of that fact I can see it appealing to a variety of people if they can get past the dated feel to it.
Robert De Niro did a great job as Pupkin, and even in the short clip above you can see that in his behaviour changes to his environment. The dynamic with each individual character changes from confidence to anxious and irritated and you get a sense of what's going on in his head. His performance escalates nicely and when you combine his actions with those of Masha (Sandra Bernhard) you get quite an impact at the end.
I get the feeling it might be a little... bland... for modern audiences at times. That might not be quite the right way to describe it. It plods along at a good pace but there isn't any deviation from its focus on Pupkin and if that doesn't click with you then it might not be something that can keep you interested.
If this hadn't come up in my Twitter polls of films to watch then I probably wouldn't have reviewed it. It's a good film, with solid acting and everything is a perfect snapshot of its era, but it just isn't for me. If I'd watched it years ago and certainly if I'd watched it before Joker came out then I might have been able to engage more with it. I can see why so many people love it but it just isn't for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-king-of-comedy-movie-review.html
Rupert Pupkin dreams of a life as a stand-up comic. Almost every night he's outside the local studio to see his idol Jerry Langford to try and get the big break that will launch his career. Rupert's obsession for success starts to completely run his life and with his newfound "friendship" with Jerry he becomes even more unstable and crosses a line there's no coming back from.
Before I comment on anything specific I want to point out that the rating of the film isn't really anything to do with its quality, it's more to do with me. I absolutely hate awkward comedy and awkwardness in general on screen, it makes me uncomfortable and I would much rather just leave that awkward feeling to my everyday life than have it in my downtime too.
The story idea is a solid one (if it hadn't been then I'm sure Joke would have done more original thinking) and the idea of obsessive fan culture is something I think all generations can get along with. Because of that fact I can see it appealing to a variety of people if they can get past the dated feel to it.
Robert De Niro did a great job as Pupkin, and even in the short clip above you can see that in his behaviour changes to his environment. The dynamic with each individual character changes from confidence to anxious and irritated and you get a sense of what's going on in his head. His performance escalates nicely and when you combine his actions with those of Masha (Sandra Bernhard) you get quite an impact at the end.
I get the feeling it might be a little... bland... for modern audiences at times. That might not be quite the right way to describe it. It plods along at a good pace but there isn't any deviation from its focus on Pupkin and if that doesn't click with you then it might not be something that can keep you interested.
If this hadn't come up in my Twitter polls of films to watch then I probably wouldn't have reviewed it. It's a good film, with solid acting and everything is a perfect snapshot of its era, but it just isn't for me. If I'd watched it years ago and certainly if I'd watched it before Joker came out then I might have been able to engage more with it. I can see why so many people love it but it just isn't for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-king-of-comedy-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Booksmart (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Due to terrible scheduling I managed to miss the Booksmart Unlimited Screening. (Who puts them on a bank holiday?!) Thankfully it appeared again in the listings and I pootled off out to see it!
Amy and Molly are about to graduate and do amazing things with their lives. They've worked hard, studying was their lives, but what soon becomes evident is that even those students that partied are going on to ivy league schools and getting their dream jobs. Have they wasted their high school lives thinking they couldn't have it all? More importantly, can they turn it around and see out their school career with the ultimate 180?
It's safe to say that the internet is obsessed with Booksmart. Olivia Wilde is making her film directorial debut, the cast is chock-full of talented actors and the subject matter is a continually popular one, so really that fact the internet has gone wild is a bit of a no brainer.
Beanie Feldstein and Kaitlyn Dever play our leads, Molly and Amy. Both of them are particularly good and their chemistry is incredible. There was no point where I didn't believe they were best friends trying to deal with their situations. Even though Amy is the "back seat" friend in her relationship with Molly she thankfully gets a lot of screen time. Dever is probably my favourite bit of this film, she's very funny and creates a surprisingly laid back Amy despite all the drama.
The support cast is strong and I only had a couple of quibbles which was more to do with the characters than the acting. Jessica Williams as Miss Fie was a stand out for me, and I love the idea that she's that close with her students. Her part in the ending of the film was particularly amusing.
Going into Booksmart I was expecting funny, but I really wasn't prepared for the emotion. The party is a climax for a lot of the story points and we see Molly and Amy going for their own high school wins. As you'd expect, this leads to a bit of conflict. The way this is handled is thoughtful and stops the final scene from this sequence being over the top with the script.
Booksmart captures the larger than life high school experience and the only thing that might be a little too much is the fact that the character traits are all knocked up a couple of notches, they go get a little close to the line.
While I liked a lot of things about Booksmart I was surprised at how the beginning took so long to really get going. It wasn't until their scheme was underway that I started to enjoy it a bit more. It's an entertaining comedy with some surprise emotion thrown in but something didn't quick click and I'm not sure if it's the slow start or the sudden dose of reality at the end that's done that.
I kept thinking of other things to mention but I could have gone on for ages so I'll just add a couple of out of context comments: Barbies, pizza guy and "motherf***ing homework".
What you should do
Definitely one to watch, it's amusing and slightly awkward so perhaps choose your cinema buddy wisely.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like Gigi's clearly superhero powers.
Amy and Molly are about to graduate and do amazing things with their lives. They've worked hard, studying was their lives, but what soon becomes evident is that even those students that partied are going on to ivy league schools and getting their dream jobs. Have they wasted their high school lives thinking they couldn't have it all? More importantly, can they turn it around and see out their school career with the ultimate 180?
It's safe to say that the internet is obsessed with Booksmart. Olivia Wilde is making her film directorial debut, the cast is chock-full of talented actors and the subject matter is a continually popular one, so really that fact the internet has gone wild is a bit of a no brainer.
Beanie Feldstein and Kaitlyn Dever play our leads, Molly and Amy. Both of them are particularly good and their chemistry is incredible. There was no point where I didn't believe they were best friends trying to deal with their situations. Even though Amy is the "back seat" friend in her relationship with Molly she thankfully gets a lot of screen time. Dever is probably my favourite bit of this film, she's very funny and creates a surprisingly laid back Amy despite all the drama.
The support cast is strong and I only had a couple of quibbles which was more to do with the characters than the acting. Jessica Williams as Miss Fie was a stand out for me, and I love the idea that she's that close with her students. Her part in the ending of the film was particularly amusing.
Going into Booksmart I was expecting funny, but I really wasn't prepared for the emotion. The party is a climax for a lot of the story points and we see Molly and Amy going for their own high school wins. As you'd expect, this leads to a bit of conflict. The way this is handled is thoughtful and stops the final scene from this sequence being over the top with the script.
Booksmart captures the larger than life high school experience and the only thing that might be a little too much is the fact that the character traits are all knocked up a couple of notches, they go get a little close to the line.
While I liked a lot of things about Booksmart I was surprised at how the beginning took so long to really get going. It wasn't until their scheme was underway that I started to enjoy it a bit more. It's an entertaining comedy with some surprise emotion thrown in but something didn't quick click and I'm not sure if it's the slow start or the sudden dose of reality at the end that's done that.
I kept thinking of other things to mention but I could have gone on for ages so I'll just add a couple of out of context comments: Barbies, pizza guy and "motherf***ing homework".
What you should do
Definitely one to watch, it's amusing and slightly awkward so perhaps choose your cinema buddy wisely.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like Gigi's clearly superhero powers.
Fishing Deluxe - Best Fishing Times Calendar
Weather and Lifestyle
App
SALE 30% OFF! The app gives you the best fishing times for your location, so you can plan fishing...