Search
Search results
The Final Day
Book
A major release in the New York Times bestselling One Second After series, set in an alternate...
Science fiction
Love at First Like
6.0
Rate It
Book
Love at First Like is the perfect rom-com for anyone who's ever looked for love online! 'Such a...
Hazel (2934 KP) rated The Midwife's Child (WW2 Resistance Series #3) in Books
May 21, 2023
The Midwife's Child is an emotional rollercoaster that although is work of fiction, it's based on things that actually happened and real people with the love story element between Maggie and Jamie being based on the true story of a Scottish Commando who met a young woman in a displaced persons camp who had survived the death march.
This is the third in this series but I think it works successfully as a standalone because whilst there are recurring characters, each book is a separate story which focusses on one of those recurring characters.
The Midwife's Child centres around Maggie, a former SOE Special Operations Executive) but now incarcerated in Auschwitz following her capture. There she finds herself working in the camp hospital where the devil incarnate, Joseph Mengele, practised his infamous experiments and where Maggie is determined to save the life of her friend Eva and new born, Leah. The end of the war is fast approaching and the Russians are getting close, Eva is too unwell to go on the forced march so she begs Maggie to save her child and reunite her with her father. A seemingly impossible task but one which Maggie vows to complete.
Told from two timelines, from her time as a doctor working in the 'hospital' at Auschwitz towards the end of the war and the period afterwards, The Midwife's Child is a story of exceptional courage, duty, love, friendship and hope and a story that I highly recommended to those of you who enjoy this genre and I have to thank Bookouture and NetGalley for enabling me to read and share my thoughts of The Midwife's Child.
This is the third in this series but I think it works successfully as a standalone because whilst there are recurring characters, each book is a separate story which focusses on one of those recurring characters.
The Midwife's Child centres around Maggie, a former SOE Special Operations Executive) but now incarcerated in Auschwitz following her capture. There she finds herself working in the camp hospital where the devil incarnate, Joseph Mengele, practised his infamous experiments and where Maggie is determined to save the life of her friend Eva and new born, Leah. The end of the war is fast approaching and the Russians are getting close, Eva is too unwell to go on the forced march so she begs Maggie to save her child and reunite her with her father. A seemingly impossible task but one which Maggie vows to complete.
Told from two timelines, from her time as a doctor working in the 'hospital' at Auschwitz towards the end of the war and the period afterwards, The Midwife's Child is a story of exceptional courage, duty, love, friendship and hope and a story that I highly recommended to those of you who enjoy this genre and I have to thank Bookouture and NetGalley for enabling me to read and share my thoughts of The Midwife's Child.
Master Zane's Boys (Club Sensation #1)
8.0
Rate It
Book
Master, Daddy, protector. Zane will do anything for his boys… As the owner of Boston's Club...
Contemporary MMM Romance BDSM Daddy / little Age Gap
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) in Movies
Jun 5, 2019
The Force is strong in this one...
Like so many of us, I had theorised what would happen in this movie based on the influx of teaser trailers online, and I'm happy to say, I was wrong on nearly everything! I like being surprised, and this film was just that. A very pleasant surprise. It's Star Wars, like Star Wars should be. Not too heavy on the CGI, plenty of action interlaced with character-driven dialogue and sub-plots, and yes, someone says "I have a bad feeling about this..." which is just ace!
So, the story. (No spoilers here, promise!) We join the action some 30 years after partying with the Ewoks on Endor. The Empire is no more, yet, like an evil phoenix, The First Order has risen from its ashes and is doing much the same thing—being awful to everyone and trying to rule the galaxy. Same old, same old.
There are plenty of new faces—the three main ones effectively being modern-day retellings of our old favourites. First up is Oscar Isaac's excellent Poe Dameron, who is this year's Han Solo. A hot-shot rebel fighter pilot, with rogue-ish good looks, a cheeky grin, and wise-cracking dialogue.
Then, we have the Stormtrooper with a conscience, played by John Boyega. A really good performance by him, and despite his character’s beginnings, it doesn't take long for you to genuinely care what happens to him. He's this year's Luke Skywalker, definitely.
And finally, there's the mysterious Rey, the tough-as-nails tomboy who's hotter than you first realise, brought to life by the uber-talented, destined-for-great-things, Daisy Ridley. Not much is known about who she is, but she's this year's Princess Leia, without a doubt.
And that was the first thing that really struck a chord with me—how the film acknowledges the original characters, but gives them a twist for the newer, younger audience. The comparisons are immediate and obvious, but they work. Instead of the kick-ass princess, you have the hard-done-by street kid... instead of the teenager dreaming of escaping his dead-end life, you have one who struggles to accept he's not meant for the exciting one he has. Kids today will relate to these things, yet the film manages to keep the essence of what made the main characters from the classic films so memorable.
We also have the new lovable droid, BB-8, who, like R2-D2 so many years ago, unwittingly finds itself with a garbled message in its memory banks, and in the possession of one of our heroes.
In much the same way that Episode IV didn’t hang about getting Darth Vader on the screen, it's not long before we're treated to our first look at the big bad—Kylo Ren. Let's run through the checklist:
• Looks cool wearing black? Check.
• Masked, with scary voice? Check.
• Mean? Check.
So, Mr. Ren starts out doing everything we would expect, which is nice. We know he's working with The First Order, we know he's looking for something... so far, so Star Wars.
The film moves along at a good pace. Plenty of action and fighting, slowed down by great interaction between the main cast where needed. Then we start getting drip-fed the old-timers, which is where the fanboy in you will get really excited. We first get a look of Han Solo and Chewbacca, which we already knew from the trailers, when Han says, "Chewy, we're home." Harrison Ford steps back into the role like putting on an old pair of shoes—a little awkward at first, but you soon remember how comfortable they are, and you're off and running in no time. It's almost like he's not played any other part since 1983 (and after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I bet sometimes Mr. Ford wishes that were the case!). Accompanied by his long-time friend, he effortlessly goes through the motions as the scoundrel looking to make some money, but always ending up owing someone more than he has.
It's not long before a twist of fate puts him and Chewy alongside our new heroes, and they're on their way to see another familiar face, Princess Leia. Except she's not a Princess anymore, she's the General of the Resistance. I won't say too much about her, as her parts in the film are integral to the main storyline, and I don't want to ruin it. Suffice to say, like any couple reuniting after 30 years, her and Han are a joy to watch on screen together.
I don't want to delve into the storyline too much, because a) you've probably pieced together the gist of it from all the trailers, and b) it's hard to do without telling you things you won't know if you haven't already seen it. So I'll leave it there, but will finish by saying it's a pleasure from start to finish, it cues up the inevitable sequels well, and it does nothing more than what it should do—it gives you a Star Wars experience that leaves you wanting to watch it again the moment it finishes.
So, the downsides. There aren't many, but, for me, there are some. They don't take away from the movie as a whole, but they detracted from the experience enough to make them worth mentioning, so here goes.
Princess/General Leia - I'm sorry, but poor Carrie Fisher has had so much Botox, I genuinely thought it was a different actress when she first appeared on camera. We see her go through an emotional reunion, some heartache, some humorous banter, some thrilling, edge-of-the-seat action, and a nail-biting, jaw-dropping finale... and not once did her expression change! Probably because it couldn't. She's the only one who looked like they were struggling to revive their character, because she didn't look like a natural, older version of herself… she looked like she was trying to be a younger version of herself, and it made me not want to see her as much as other characters.
Kylo Ren - This guy starts out as being awesome. His mask is suitably evil, his voice is menacing, his lightsabre is just brilliant… But then he takes his mask off. He's doing something (which I won't detail, but is another obvious and much-appreciated nod to the film's predecessors) and he just takes off his mask. Now, no disrespect to Adam Driver, but... have you seen Harry Potter? Well, Kylo Ren, without his mask, kinda looks like he's related in some distant, in-bred way, to Neville Longbottom. He continues with his evil gestures and scary intentions, but without the mask, you just kinda think... Really? Am I meant to be scared here? When I was a kid, Darth Vader terrified the hell out of me! This guy... you could probably flush his head and steal his lunch money, if he doesn't force-choke you beforehand.
I think he’s another Hayden Christensen—horribly miscast for an important role that could’ve defined the right actor’s career. Let's hope it doesn't end up ruining it for him. Should've kept the mask on, Kylo!
Captain Phasma - The name might not mean much to casual fans, but I’m referring to the chrome Stormtrooper who has inexplicably developed somewhat of a cult following since their appearance in the trailers. They’re the tall, imposing, assumed leader of the Stormtroopers, and certainly looks the part. However, that part is so insignificant, it’s like it was written in as an after-thought. The character will apparently play a more significant role in later films, but that’s hardly the point. We first see him at the beginning, and they’re all evil and shooty, which is fine. But then we see him only a couple of times after that and, at one point, he’s taken hostage in possibly the most unimposing, least-threatening way imaginable, and he just goes along with it. What the hell?! Oh, and I say “He”, but the character is actually played by a woman—Gwendoline Christie, the tall, sword-wielding blonde from Game of Thrones. Anyway…
The final thing that annoyed me a little bit is tough to talk about, because it's riddled with spoilers. But I shall simply say this: the way a certain character (who I haven't mentioned previously) was handled could've been done so much better than it was. That's it. I'll say no more. Watch the film, then read this again. You'll know what I mean.
So, to sum up. This is a great addition to the franchise, no doubt. But, forgetting it's Star Wars for a moment, it's simply a great film. It provides everything you would want from this genre, and it leaves you wanting more at the end (with a clear indication it's going to provide it at some point in the future). Now go. Enjoy. Even if you don't like Star Wars, it's worth a watch. Though I'm pretty certain after seeing it, you'll want to watch the others.
So, the story. (No spoilers here, promise!) We join the action some 30 years after partying with the Ewoks on Endor. The Empire is no more, yet, like an evil phoenix, The First Order has risen from its ashes and is doing much the same thing—being awful to everyone and trying to rule the galaxy. Same old, same old.
There are plenty of new faces—the three main ones effectively being modern-day retellings of our old favourites. First up is Oscar Isaac's excellent Poe Dameron, who is this year's Han Solo. A hot-shot rebel fighter pilot, with rogue-ish good looks, a cheeky grin, and wise-cracking dialogue.
Then, we have the Stormtrooper with a conscience, played by John Boyega. A really good performance by him, and despite his character’s beginnings, it doesn't take long for you to genuinely care what happens to him. He's this year's Luke Skywalker, definitely.
And finally, there's the mysterious Rey, the tough-as-nails tomboy who's hotter than you first realise, brought to life by the uber-talented, destined-for-great-things, Daisy Ridley. Not much is known about who she is, but she's this year's Princess Leia, without a doubt.
And that was the first thing that really struck a chord with me—how the film acknowledges the original characters, but gives them a twist for the newer, younger audience. The comparisons are immediate and obvious, but they work. Instead of the kick-ass princess, you have the hard-done-by street kid... instead of the teenager dreaming of escaping his dead-end life, you have one who struggles to accept he's not meant for the exciting one he has. Kids today will relate to these things, yet the film manages to keep the essence of what made the main characters from the classic films so memorable.
We also have the new lovable droid, BB-8, who, like R2-D2 so many years ago, unwittingly finds itself with a garbled message in its memory banks, and in the possession of one of our heroes.
In much the same way that Episode IV didn’t hang about getting Darth Vader on the screen, it's not long before we're treated to our first look at the big bad—Kylo Ren. Let's run through the checklist:
• Looks cool wearing black? Check.
• Masked, with scary voice? Check.
• Mean? Check.
So, Mr. Ren starts out doing everything we would expect, which is nice. We know he's working with The First Order, we know he's looking for something... so far, so Star Wars.
The film moves along at a good pace. Plenty of action and fighting, slowed down by great interaction between the main cast where needed. Then we start getting drip-fed the old-timers, which is where the fanboy in you will get really excited. We first get a look of Han Solo and Chewbacca, which we already knew from the trailers, when Han says, "Chewy, we're home." Harrison Ford steps back into the role like putting on an old pair of shoes—a little awkward at first, but you soon remember how comfortable they are, and you're off and running in no time. It's almost like he's not played any other part since 1983 (and after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I bet sometimes Mr. Ford wishes that were the case!). Accompanied by his long-time friend, he effortlessly goes through the motions as the scoundrel looking to make some money, but always ending up owing someone more than he has.
It's not long before a twist of fate puts him and Chewy alongside our new heroes, and they're on their way to see another familiar face, Princess Leia. Except she's not a Princess anymore, she's the General of the Resistance. I won't say too much about her, as her parts in the film are integral to the main storyline, and I don't want to ruin it. Suffice to say, like any couple reuniting after 30 years, her and Han are a joy to watch on screen together.
I don't want to delve into the storyline too much, because a) you've probably pieced together the gist of it from all the trailers, and b) it's hard to do without telling you things you won't know if you haven't already seen it. So I'll leave it there, but will finish by saying it's a pleasure from start to finish, it cues up the inevitable sequels well, and it does nothing more than what it should do—it gives you a Star Wars experience that leaves you wanting to watch it again the moment it finishes.
So, the downsides. There aren't many, but, for me, there are some. They don't take away from the movie as a whole, but they detracted from the experience enough to make them worth mentioning, so here goes.
Princess/General Leia - I'm sorry, but poor Carrie Fisher has had so much Botox, I genuinely thought it was a different actress when she first appeared on camera. We see her go through an emotional reunion, some heartache, some humorous banter, some thrilling, edge-of-the-seat action, and a nail-biting, jaw-dropping finale... and not once did her expression change! Probably because it couldn't. She's the only one who looked like they were struggling to revive their character, because she didn't look like a natural, older version of herself… she looked like she was trying to be a younger version of herself, and it made me not want to see her as much as other characters.
Kylo Ren - This guy starts out as being awesome. His mask is suitably evil, his voice is menacing, his lightsabre is just brilliant… But then he takes his mask off. He's doing something (which I won't detail, but is another obvious and much-appreciated nod to the film's predecessors) and he just takes off his mask. Now, no disrespect to Adam Driver, but... have you seen Harry Potter? Well, Kylo Ren, without his mask, kinda looks like he's related in some distant, in-bred way, to Neville Longbottom. He continues with his evil gestures and scary intentions, but without the mask, you just kinda think... Really? Am I meant to be scared here? When I was a kid, Darth Vader terrified the hell out of me! This guy... you could probably flush his head and steal his lunch money, if he doesn't force-choke you beforehand.
I think he’s another Hayden Christensen—horribly miscast for an important role that could’ve defined the right actor’s career. Let's hope it doesn't end up ruining it for him. Should've kept the mask on, Kylo!
Captain Phasma - The name might not mean much to casual fans, but I’m referring to the chrome Stormtrooper who has inexplicably developed somewhat of a cult following since their appearance in the trailers. They’re the tall, imposing, assumed leader of the Stormtroopers, and certainly looks the part. However, that part is so insignificant, it’s like it was written in as an after-thought. The character will apparently play a more significant role in later films, but that’s hardly the point. We first see him at the beginning, and they’re all evil and shooty, which is fine. But then we see him only a couple of times after that and, at one point, he’s taken hostage in possibly the most unimposing, least-threatening way imaginable, and he just goes along with it. What the hell?! Oh, and I say “He”, but the character is actually played by a woman—Gwendoline Christie, the tall, sword-wielding blonde from Game of Thrones. Anyway…
The final thing that annoyed me a little bit is tough to talk about, because it's riddled with spoilers. But I shall simply say this: the way a certain character (who I haven't mentioned previously) was handled could've been done so much better than it was. That's it. I'll say no more. Watch the film, then read this again. You'll know what I mean.
So, to sum up. This is a great addition to the franchise, no doubt. But, forgetting it's Star Wars for a moment, it's simply a great film. It provides everything you would want from this genre, and it leaves you wanting more at the end (with a clear indication it's going to provide it at some point in the future). Now go. Enjoy. Even if you don't like Star Wars, it's worth a watch. Though I'm pretty certain after seeing it, you'll want to watch the others.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Maze Runner in Books
Apr 6, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
There are murderous creatures in the maze, but the maze is your only way home.
Although there is power in numbers, no one in the Glade knows how they got there or why they're there. Everyone has a job, either making food or running the maze, hoping to find an exit, but they've been at it for two years.
Then there's the 'changing.' Anyone who has seen the creatures in the maze knows they can be stung instead of killed (which one is worse is hard to tell), it brings back unwanted memories of their life before the maze. All can agree, that have been stung, it's better to live with the Maze than with what's outside in the world.
In 'The Maze Runner,' James Dashner writes an action filled mystery that keeps the readers on their toes. Although the film is already out and has been viewed by millions, the book is well worth a read just because the movie kept out crucial parts that happened in the book!
The reader gets to follow Thomas from the very moment he enters the Glade; everything is new for him and for us. Thomas quickly wants to be a Runner (someone who runs the maze every day, from sun up to sun down), but the leaders of the Glade think he's a greenie (new person in the Glade) that thinks he's too good for hard labor: "Listen, trust me on this, Tommy. Start stompin' around this place yappin' about how you're too good to work like a peasant, how you're all nice and ready to be a Runner - you'll make plenty of enemies. Drop it for now." Thomas' fast friend, Newt, gives him sound advice.
Later in the book, Thomas ends up becoming a Runner after saving the leader of the Glade from the maze and its creatures. The maze's openings close at sundown every night, which means if you get caught in the maze afterwards, you are stuck out there until sun rise, and this is exactly what happened with leader, Alby and lead Runner, Minho.
As the walls were closing, Thomas and Newt saw the forms of Alby and Minho appear,but they both knew they wouldn't make it in time - Thomas runs inside just as the walls shut behind him. "Greenie,' Minho said, 'if you think that was brave comin' out here, listen up. You're the shuckiest shuck-faced shuck there ever was. You're as good as dead, just like us." Thomas also broke the biggest rule of the Glade : DO NOT ENTER THE MAZE IF YOU'RE NOT A RUNNER.
This entire night is the most important part of the book.
All of the characters in Dashner's first book of the series are interesting and diverse, even down to Newt's accent. My biggest complaint of this book was the author's over use of the words meters and centimeters; there are plenty of words out there that are used to describe how big or how small something is,but Dashner decided to only use those two words repeatedly. Also, all of the Gladers use code words for curse words, but this is never explained why they do this (such as shuck face instead of fuck face).
Then there's the telepathy that Thomas has with Teresa (the only girl to ever show up at the Glade) - this may be explained later on in the other books,but having only read this one so far - this is never explained. They use this ability quite a bit after Teresa wakes up from her 'coma,' that it almost seems like an afterthought that was just added to make the story more interesting.
I also don't have patience for characters that make a decision then suddenly change their mind the very next page. At one point, when Thomas and Teresa learn that there is a code for the maze, they agree that they shouldn't tell anyone about it,yet,suddenly, like right after Thomas states he doesn't need to tell anyone, he's thinking he MUST tell someone about the code.
But,the entire book isn't like this. Dashner is very fluid in his writing,and keeps the reader interested with really no downtime in between chapters - there just always seems to be something happening or going wrong!
Also, Dashner made Thomas into an emotional character, something that is odd in writing for a male character. He isn't afraid to show his emotions, and this is something that is very welcomed and written quite well throughout the book.
Yet, the other characters aren't written as well as our main character. A majority of the characters just seem angry all the time, walking around with a chip on their shoulder. Any other character that is mentioned, such as Zart, is a blank slate except for the slight description of what they look like.
The Glade and the maze are wonderfully described that even a light reader can imagine it. The creatures inside seem to take the cake when it comes to description, seeming that Dashner took more time out to describe these nightmarish beings.
I think the fact that the movie left out important parts of the book did a dishonor to Dashner's work. The book's version of events may not make more sense than the film's, but it made for a more interesting story. I do like the movies, but you MUST read the book if you like them. You missed out on quite a few things.
I certainly recommend this book. Most people don't categorize 'The Maze Runner' as a horror- genre book,but I ask you: if you woke up in an isolated community, where you can only get out if you solve the maze, which is covered in creatures that want to hunt you down and kill you, wouldn't you consider that a horrific problem?
Although there is power in numbers, no one in the Glade knows how they got there or why they're there. Everyone has a job, either making food or running the maze, hoping to find an exit, but they've been at it for two years.
Then there's the 'changing.' Anyone who has seen the creatures in the maze knows they can be stung instead of killed (which one is worse is hard to tell), it brings back unwanted memories of their life before the maze. All can agree, that have been stung, it's better to live with the Maze than with what's outside in the world.
In 'The Maze Runner,' James Dashner writes an action filled mystery that keeps the readers on their toes. Although the film is already out and has been viewed by millions, the book is well worth a read just because the movie kept out crucial parts that happened in the book!
The reader gets to follow Thomas from the very moment he enters the Glade; everything is new for him and for us. Thomas quickly wants to be a Runner (someone who runs the maze every day, from sun up to sun down), but the leaders of the Glade think he's a greenie (new person in the Glade) that thinks he's too good for hard labor: "Listen, trust me on this, Tommy. Start stompin' around this place yappin' about how you're too good to work like a peasant, how you're all nice and ready to be a Runner - you'll make plenty of enemies. Drop it for now." Thomas' fast friend, Newt, gives him sound advice.
Later in the book, Thomas ends up becoming a Runner after saving the leader of the Glade from the maze and its creatures. The maze's openings close at sundown every night, which means if you get caught in the maze afterwards, you are stuck out there until sun rise, and this is exactly what happened with leader, Alby and lead Runner, Minho.
As the walls were closing, Thomas and Newt saw the forms of Alby and Minho appear,but they both knew they wouldn't make it in time - Thomas runs inside just as the walls shut behind him. "Greenie,' Minho said, 'if you think that was brave comin' out here, listen up. You're the shuckiest shuck-faced shuck there ever was. You're as good as dead, just like us." Thomas also broke the biggest rule of the Glade : DO NOT ENTER THE MAZE IF YOU'RE NOT A RUNNER.
This entire night is the most important part of the book.
All of the characters in Dashner's first book of the series are interesting and diverse, even down to Newt's accent. My biggest complaint of this book was the author's over use of the words meters and centimeters; there are plenty of words out there that are used to describe how big or how small something is,but Dashner decided to only use those two words repeatedly. Also, all of the Gladers use code words for curse words, but this is never explained why they do this (such as shuck face instead of fuck face).
Then there's the telepathy that Thomas has with Teresa (the only girl to ever show up at the Glade) - this may be explained later on in the other books,but having only read this one so far - this is never explained. They use this ability quite a bit after Teresa wakes up from her 'coma,' that it almost seems like an afterthought that was just added to make the story more interesting.
I also don't have patience for characters that make a decision then suddenly change their mind the very next page. At one point, when Thomas and Teresa learn that there is a code for the maze, they agree that they shouldn't tell anyone about it,yet,suddenly, like right after Thomas states he doesn't need to tell anyone, he's thinking he MUST tell someone about the code.
But,the entire book isn't like this. Dashner is very fluid in his writing,and keeps the reader interested with really no downtime in between chapters - there just always seems to be something happening or going wrong!
Also, Dashner made Thomas into an emotional character, something that is odd in writing for a male character. He isn't afraid to show his emotions, and this is something that is very welcomed and written quite well throughout the book.
Yet, the other characters aren't written as well as our main character. A majority of the characters just seem angry all the time, walking around with a chip on their shoulder. Any other character that is mentioned, such as Zart, is a blank slate except for the slight description of what they look like.
The Glade and the maze are wonderfully described that even a light reader can imagine it. The creatures inside seem to take the cake when it comes to description, seeming that Dashner took more time out to describe these nightmarish beings.
I think the fact that the movie left out important parts of the book did a dishonor to Dashner's work. The book's version of events may not make more sense than the film's, but it made for a more interesting story. I do like the movies, but you MUST read the book if you like them. You missed out on quite a few things.
I certainly recommend this book. Most people don't categorize 'The Maze Runner' as a horror- genre book,but I ask you: if you woke up in an isolated community, where you can only get out if you solve the maze, which is covered in creatures that want to hunt you down and kill you, wouldn't you consider that a horrific problem?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Nov 13, 2018 (Updated Nov 13, 2018)
Predictable jumpscares (2 more)
Bad acting
Crappy script
Overhyped Garbage
The Haunting Of Hill House is a 2018 Netflix series directed by Mike Flanagan, who directed last year's fantastically creepy adaption of Stephen King's 'Gerald's Game'. Hill House even features some of the same cast members in Carla Gugino and Henry Thomas, whom I both really like. Before diving into it, I thought that this show was going to be tailor made for me, with a brilliant cast and the same subtle but terrifying horror that Flanagan used in Gerald's Game.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
Barking Dog - Monitor & Control - Bark'n Mad
Lifestyle and Utilities
App
Is your dog barking while you are out? Is the dog next door continually barking? Run monitoring...
The first half of The Serpent and the Moon mainly deals with Francois I's reign as king and has little to do with the love triangle. Frankly, the whole book itself hasn't much to do with the love triangle or "one of the great love stories of all time," but more to do with the political intrigue of Henri I and his father's reigns. Oh, and lest I forget, Henri, Diane, and both of their symbols, monograms, etc. I honestly don't know what the whole fascination of that was all about, but it showed up everywhere.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.