Search
365Flicks (235 KP) rated The Mason Brothers (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
It has been some time since I sat down to watch a good heist movie, so when I received The Mason Brothers and read things like ‘Inspired by films like The Untouchables and Reservoir Dogs’ well call me an old romantic for those films in particular but I will give this one a shot for sure.
I’m going to put something right on front street when it comes to this movie. When it says inspired by Reservoir Dogs it means inspired by… However as my esteemed podcast co-host said “there are worse movies to be inspired by”.
The Mason Brothers is the story of a group of Bank Robbers who as you may imagine are also brothers. We join the crew right after a heist has just gone really wrong and we witness the aftermath where one of the brothers dies. We then spend the night with the other 3 as they hide out waiting for an associate to track down the members of the other crew who screwed them over. The story is given to us in present time and flashbacks, so as the night unfolds and we start to find out who exactly set the guys up, caused there brother to die and wants the cash for themselves. Meanwhile via flashbacks we find out how they planned the job, who they cut into the deal and motivations for why and who did this to the brothers. That about covers it…. Obviously there are twisty turn-y things but hey No Spoilers here.
Keith Sutliff in his Directorial debut has hit upon something great here. He has assembled a good cast with some great chemistry and like most first time directors even throws himself into the mix on acting duties. Sutliff has a real flair for dialogue and it flows throughout. Sometimes screaming ‘you do love a Tarantino flick, dont you!!’ but at the same time freshening up a genre that often feels stale. I was real impressed with this as a Debut movie because it looks great has some real interesting choices with the editing and camera work but everything fits and the movie never loses sight of itself.
Quick word on the cast. As stated Sutliff plays brother Ren Mason, the planner, the mastermind and the strong silent type. Brandon Sean Pearson plays Jesse Mason the full blooded aggravated hot head of the crew. Personally I thought Pearson was the shining light of this Flick. Matthew Webb is Gage, a member of the group but not actually a Mason, I thought right the way through Gage was a wild card and I like to think that was a conscious decision. Rounding off the team is Micheal Ryan Whelan as Orion Mason who we only really see during the flashbacks but has some great little monologue-y scenes. Other supporters include Julien Cesario (Sons of Anarchy), Tim Park (Matador, Sons of Anarchy) and Nazo Bravo (Vigilante Diaries).
Yeah I would say this is a recommend from us here, The script is nice and wordy (something I love) the core cast all deliver in a pretty well paced heist movie gone wrong.
I’m going to put something right on front street when it comes to this movie. When it says inspired by Reservoir Dogs it means inspired by… However as my esteemed podcast co-host said “there are worse movies to be inspired by”.
The Mason Brothers is the story of a group of Bank Robbers who as you may imagine are also brothers. We join the crew right after a heist has just gone really wrong and we witness the aftermath where one of the brothers dies. We then spend the night with the other 3 as they hide out waiting for an associate to track down the members of the other crew who screwed them over. The story is given to us in present time and flashbacks, so as the night unfolds and we start to find out who exactly set the guys up, caused there brother to die and wants the cash for themselves. Meanwhile via flashbacks we find out how they planned the job, who they cut into the deal and motivations for why and who did this to the brothers. That about covers it…. Obviously there are twisty turn-y things but hey No Spoilers here.
Keith Sutliff in his Directorial debut has hit upon something great here. He has assembled a good cast with some great chemistry and like most first time directors even throws himself into the mix on acting duties. Sutliff has a real flair for dialogue and it flows throughout. Sometimes screaming ‘you do love a Tarantino flick, dont you!!’ but at the same time freshening up a genre that often feels stale. I was real impressed with this as a Debut movie because it looks great has some real interesting choices with the editing and camera work but everything fits and the movie never loses sight of itself.
Quick word on the cast. As stated Sutliff plays brother Ren Mason, the planner, the mastermind and the strong silent type. Brandon Sean Pearson plays Jesse Mason the full blooded aggravated hot head of the crew. Personally I thought Pearson was the shining light of this Flick. Matthew Webb is Gage, a member of the group but not actually a Mason, I thought right the way through Gage was a wild card and I like to think that was a conscious decision. Rounding off the team is Micheal Ryan Whelan as Orion Mason who we only really see during the flashbacks but has some great little monologue-y scenes. Other supporters include Julien Cesario (Sons of Anarchy), Tim Park (Matador, Sons of Anarchy) and Nazo Bravo (Vigilante Diaries).
Yeah I would say this is a recommend from us here, The script is nice and wordy (something I love) the core cast all deliver in a pretty well paced heist movie gone wrong.
JT (287 KP) rated Session 9 (2001) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Looking back I’ve written a number of horror film reviews which, probably highlights what my favourite genre is? I’ve not been into torture porn or serious amounts of gore. I don’t mind it in small doses, but I prefer films that get under your skin – case in point, Session 9.
In order to satisfy the millennials the majority of horror films today get their thrills from cheap jump scares. But real terror comes from the things that we can relate to. Things that go ‘bump‘ in the night or the sense that we are being watched. This for me, is real terror. Directed by Brad Anderson, Session 9 embodies all of that to perfection.
Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
An asbestos cleaning crew are set the task of clearing the abandoned Danvers State Hospital, a job that needs to be done within a week. Company owner Gordon (Peter Mullan) has put a lot of pressure on his team, consisting of Mike (Stephen Gevedon), Phil (David Caruso), Hank (Josh Lucas), and Jeff (Brendan Sexton III), to meet the deadline and collect a bonus. It’s pressure that starts to spill over right from the off.
The hospital is creepy as hell and even in the daylight the crew are plunged into darkness, which doesn’t sit well with Jeff who has a serious case of nyctophobia. They also have to deal with in-fighting amongst the group. On top of the tight deadline Gordon is struggling with the stress of raising a newborn child and arguments with his wife have not helped matters and slowly he becomes dissociated from the group. Meanwhile Mike stumbles across some tapes (nine of them) which are session interviews with a former patient called Mary Hobbes who has multiple personalities, that over the course of each session start to come out.
Phil (David Caruso) & Jeff (Brendan Sexton III) investigate the depths of the hospital
Like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining – the location starts to take hold of each of the men, sending them spiraling into a world of personal madness. A number of subplots become interconnected the longer the film goes on and the pacing, while slow for some horror fans, is brilliantly orchestrated for those with patience. Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
What makes the film even more terrifying is the setting. The film was shot in the actual Danvers State Hospital so it needed little doing to it in terms of effects. The hospital was said to be the birth place of the prefrontal lobotomy (something which is referenced in the film), and part of me thinks that the fear on the actors faces as they walk the halls was in fact genuine terror. If that is the case then it only adds to the horror.
Session 9 will stay with you long after the credits. It doesn’t rely on heavy gore or CGI and builds tension with what you think you can see and at times – what you can’t.
In order to satisfy the millennials the majority of horror films today get their thrills from cheap jump scares. But real terror comes from the things that we can relate to. Things that go ‘bump‘ in the night or the sense that we are being watched. This for me, is real terror. Directed by Brad Anderson, Session 9 embodies all of that to perfection.
Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
An asbestos cleaning crew are set the task of clearing the abandoned Danvers State Hospital, a job that needs to be done within a week. Company owner Gordon (Peter Mullan) has put a lot of pressure on his team, consisting of Mike (Stephen Gevedon), Phil (David Caruso), Hank (Josh Lucas), and Jeff (Brendan Sexton III), to meet the deadline and collect a bonus. It’s pressure that starts to spill over right from the off.
The hospital is creepy as hell and even in the daylight the crew are plunged into darkness, which doesn’t sit well with Jeff who has a serious case of nyctophobia. They also have to deal with in-fighting amongst the group. On top of the tight deadline Gordon is struggling with the stress of raising a newborn child and arguments with his wife have not helped matters and slowly he becomes dissociated from the group. Meanwhile Mike stumbles across some tapes (nine of them) which are session interviews with a former patient called Mary Hobbes who has multiple personalities, that over the course of each session start to come out.
Phil (David Caruso) & Jeff (Brendan Sexton III) investigate the depths of the hospital
Like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining – the location starts to take hold of each of the men, sending them spiraling into a world of personal madness. A number of subplots become interconnected the longer the film goes on and the pacing, while slow for some horror fans, is brilliantly orchestrated for those with patience. Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
What makes the film even more terrifying is the setting. The film was shot in the actual Danvers State Hospital so it needed little doing to it in terms of effects. The hospital was said to be the birth place of the prefrontal lobotomy (something which is referenced in the film), and part of me thinks that the fear on the actors faces as they walk the halls was in fact genuine terror. If that is the case then it only adds to the horror.
Session 9 will stay with you long after the credits. It doesn’t rely on heavy gore or CGI and builds tension with what you think you can see and at times – what you can’t.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Game Of Thrones - Season 8 in TV
Aug 7, 2019
And now our watch has ended
Contains spoilers, click to show
From the moment Game of Thrones first graced our screens, whenever it was going to come to and end, the last season was going to have to be special to land properly.
Not only that, but the decision to wrap up the show after 8 seasons, a decision made after the conclusion of season 6, piled even more unessecary pressure to get it right.
And the landing was pretty bumpy to say the least.
I will make this clear from the outset, I like the last season no more, and no less that season 7. It became very cool to hate on Game of Thrones during it's final run, and I would have no problem with that, but a lot of the people complaining were acting like season 7 was fantastic, where in reality, the final season suffers from the same issues of it's predecessor - the hasty sprint towards the finish line.
I have absolutely no issue with any of the events that took place. I have no issue with any of the character arcs. The issue I have is how it was executed.
Two examples spring to mind - The Battle of Winterfell - for me probably the lowpoint of season 8. I have no issue with the White Walkers threat being dealt with before the end, or that Arya was the one to deal the killing blow. However, if GoT had had another season or two, then this battle could have taken place over couple of episodes. This episode was so thick with plot armour, it was laughable at times and it felt like there were no real stakes.
Another example - Jaime and Cersei.
I have no problem with how they were killed in the penultimate episode - it was actually quite poetic watching Cersei get crushed under a kingdom that wasn't rightfully hers to rule - however, Tyrion finding their corpses so easily in the finale, in a room that didn't actually seem to damaged turned it into something stupid.
Elsewhere, the spectacle of it all still impresses. The penultimate episode where Danaerys lays waste to King's Landing is a shining example of what makes Game of Thrones such a good show, as we watch helplessly as horror unfolds before us. However, such and important event is marred by the thought of what could have been - had the series had longer to run, it wouldnt have felt so sudden - hints of her turn to madness had been woven so finely throughout earlier seasons, and the result was rightfully horrifying, but not built up as effectively as storylines from earlier seasons.
I had made my peace with the fact that Game of Thrones wasn't the same show I fell in love with at somepoint during season 7, so I wasn't even a fraction as angry or surprised as a lot of other people. It is what it is.
The final season is very up and down, but as a whole, Game of Thrones has been a behemoth of television that I'm happy to have watched.
The cast were great from start to finish, as was the the music score.
I doubt we'll see anything quite like it again.
Not only that, but the decision to wrap up the show after 8 seasons, a decision made after the conclusion of season 6, piled even more unessecary pressure to get it right.
And the landing was pretty bumpy to say the least.
I will make this clear from the outset, I like the last season no more, and no less that season 7. It became very cool to hate on Game of Thrones during it's final run, and I would have no problem with that, but a lot of the people complaining were acting like season 7 was fantastic, where in reality, the final season suffers from the same issues of it's predecessor - the hasty sprint towards the finish line.
I have absolutely no issue with any of the events that took place. I have no issue with any of the character arcs. The issue I have is how it was executed.
Two examples spring to mind - The Battle of Winterfell - for me probably the lowpoint of season 8. I have no issue with the White Walkers threat being dealt with before the end, or that Arya was the one to deal the killing blow. However, if GoT had had another season or two, then this battle could have taken place over couple of episodes. This episode was so thick with plot armour, it was laughable at times and it felt like there were no real stakes.
Another example - Jaime and Cersei.
I have no problem with how they were killed in the penultimate episode - it was actually quite poetic watching Cersei get crushed under a kingdom that wasn't rightfully hers to rule - however, Tyrion finding their corpses so easily in the finale, in a room that didn't actually seem to damaged turned it into something stupid.
Elsewhere, the spectacle of it all still impresses. The penultimate episode where Danaerys lays waste to King's Landing is a shining example of what makes Game of Thrones such a good show, as we watch helplessly as horror unfolds before us. However, such and important event is marred by the thought of what could have been - had the series had longer to run, it wouldnt have felt so sudden - hints of her turn to madness had been woven so finely throughout earlier seasons, and the result was rightfully horrifying, but not built up as effectively as storylines from earlier seasons.
I had made my peace with the fact that Game of Thrones wasn't the same show I fell in love with at somepoint during season 7, so I wasn't even a fraction as angry or surprised as a lot of other people. It is what it is.
The final season is very up and down, but as a whole, Game of Thrones has been a behemoth of television that I'm happy to have watched.
The cast were great from start to finish, as was the the music score.
I doubt we'll see anything quite like it again.
156Reviews (7 KP) rated True History of the Kelly Gang (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
One of the main things that divides opinion on Ned Kelly is was he on the side of good or bad? Some see him as a kind of freedom fighter, standing up to the British, who at the time that looked to suppress and demean the Australian people. Some see him as a criminal, who murdered innocent people for reasons known only to him. Both of these opinions may be true, neither of them might be, but it's one hell of a gamble to base a film on someone that divides opinion that much.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
Cosmic Cabaret
Rosalie Redd, Jayne Fury, C.J. Cade, Kat Vancil, Blaire Edens, Diana Rivis, Tessa McFionn, Dena Garson, Selene Grace Silver, Cailin Briste, Athena Grayson , Jenna Lincoln and Kerry Adrienne
8.0
Rate It
Book
Where Hearts Collide in the Greatest Show in Space Join us aboard Blue Star Line’s crown jewel,...
Science_Fiction Romance Anthology
Emeli Sande recommended My Love Is Your Love by Whitney Houston in Music (curated)
BookInspector (124 KP) rated The Limehouse Golem in Books
Sep 24, 2020
The blurb gives out all the necessary information about this book, leaving some mystery for the reader to figure out. The star of this novel is Lizzie Cree, an actress and a wife of well-known reporter John Cree. This novel is told from multiple perspectives: Lizzie’s life story, “Limehouse Golem’s” thoughts during the killings, and other character’s views and life stories. The most interesting to me was Lizzie’s life story, I think it was the most intriguing, complex part of this novel. I am really grateful that Peter Ackroyd added the murderer’s thoughts to this book. Even though they were really graphic, I always love to have an insight into what’s happening in a psychopath’s head. There is a wide variety of characters to choose from in this book, and I think that everybody can find their favourite. My pick would be Lizzie, she is such a well composed and intriguing character!
The narrative of this novel was very well written and researched. I did enjoy the story which author was sharing with the reader, however, there were many philosophical parts in this book, which I found boring and unnecessary. It reminded me of all the dull books I had to read while in school, so I just skim read those parts. 😦 I would like to throw in a disclaimer, that there are graphic violent parts in this book, and it is not suitable for sensitive readers. 😉
The writing style of this book is impeccable. Peter Ackroyd is a master of his craft and truly gifted writer. This novel was first published in 1994, but it feels like it was written in the 19th century. I could clearly see the author’s knowledge in this book because it was shining through the pages. The language used in this novel was very sophisticated but not very difficult to read, and the chapters where decent length, so it did not leave me bored. I really enjoyed the ending of this novel, I think it was well deserved and rounded up the story very nicely.
The film actually surprised me, it had a completely different approach to the whole story and told it through Inspector Kildare’s perspective. In the book, the whole police investigation was very vague, so it was a real surprise to see this approach, and I didn’t really mind it. The acting was marvellous and Mr D. Booth (Dan Leno) was absolutely amazing. He had the charisma and the skill to be a star of this movie. The whole movie was not a full representation of the book, they used some parts from the book and amended it to fit their story, but I liked it nevertheless. This movie is not suitable for children under 15, as it has some really gross scenes in there.
So to conclude, this book is very well written and amusing read, with well rounded and charismatic characters, and the narrative is twisty and always changing, keeping the reader interested. I do recommend to experience Lizzie’s journey and to watch the film afterwards. They do compliment each other, offering different perspectives and different interpretations, so give it a try and I hope you will enjoy it 🙂
The narrative of this novel was very well written and researched. I did enjoy the story which author was sharing with the reader, however, there were many philosophical parts in this book, which I found boring and unnecessary. It reminded me of all the dull books I had to read while in school, so I just skim read those parts. 😦 I would like to throw in a disclaimer, that there are graphic violent parts in this book, and it is not suitable for sensitive readers. 😉
The writing style of this book is impeccable. Peter Ackroyd is a master of his craft and truly gifted writer. This novel was first published in 1994, but it feels like it was written in the 19th century. I could clearly see the author’s knowledge in this book because it was shining through the pages. The language used in this novel was very sophisticated but not very difficult to read, and the chapters where decent length, so it did not leave me bored. I really enjoyed the ending of this novel, I think it was well deserved and rounded up the story very nicely.
The film actually surprised me, it had a completely different approach to the whole story and told it through Inspector Kildare’s perspective. In the book, the whole police investigation was very vague, so it was a real surprise to see this approach, and I didn’t really mind it. The acting was marvellous and Mr D. Booth (Dan Leno) was absolutely amazing. He had the charisma and the skill to be a star of this movie. The whole movie was not a full representation of the book, they used some parts from the book and amended it to fit their story, but I liked it nevertheless. This movie is not suitable for children under 15, as it has some really gross scenes in there.
So to conclude, this book is very well written and amusing read, with well rounded and charismatic characters, and the narrative is twisty and always changing, keeping the reader interested. I do recommend to experience Lizzie’s journey and to watch the film afterwards. They do compliment each other, offering different perspectives and different interpretations, so give it a try and I hope you will enjoy it 🙂
BookInspector (124 KP) rated The Woman in the Wood in Books
Sep 24, 2020
I would like to begin by saying, that this is my first book by this author, and it really surprised me. It felt like I was reading a literary classics and I really hope it will become one day.
The main characters of this book are twins Maisy and Duncan, and author really puts a lot of effort in introducing them. Generally, all the characters in this book were very well introduced and rounded. Their personalities were shining in this book, and there were so many to choose from. Lesley Pearse kept really pleasant balance between cold and warm characters, giving a taste of both and keeping the diversity going. I really liked the way author chose different ages for the characters, so everyone, from young to old will find someone to relate to. I do love books where characters have a voice, and this book didn’t disappoint me with that, but the transition between different perspectives was sometimes difficult to follow for me, as it just starts from new paragraph. That’s why, for me, this book required some concentration and suitable atmosphere to read it.
The plot of this book starts in 1960 in West London but quite quickly it is transferred to Nightingales mansion in Burley. Well, it was way before I was born and there are so many clues of the 60ies, but during whole book I had the feeling of early nineteenth century. It was because of the elegant and refined writing style used in this book, everything in this book screamed of politeness and rich mannerism, that’s why it felt like reading one of the classic books.
The story of this novel was flowing very smoothly, without any story changing twists or turns. There were some really interesting discoveries along the way, which made the book interesting, but it was not very fast paced for me. L. Pearse was discussing really interesting topics in this book, such as: children growing up with lack of parental love; the strong bond between siblings (in this case twins); how paedophilia and child abuse affects young kids mentally and physically; why people choose to live away from society; and I believe some of them were taken from author’s own colourful life.
As I mentioned before, the writing style of this book is very refined and sophisticated, and for me it is not easy to read such work, but very refreshing at the same time. The chapters of this book are not very short, but it changes between different characters perspectives, so they are not boring. I would like to throw in a disclaimer, there are some nasty things discussed in this book, so if you have an eager sensitive child who would like to read this novel, it could be a little distressing. The ending of this book wasn’t very exciting, but it was well deserved and rounded the story fully, leaving me satisfied with the outcome of this story. So to conclude, I enjoyed reading this rich novel, filled with unexpected writing style, well rounded, interesting characters, and it discusses very wide range of life aspects. Get it, read it, enjoy it!
Was given this book by publisher and NetGalley for honest review.
The main characters of this book are twins Maisy and Duncan, and author really puts a lot of effort in introducing them. Generally, all the characters in this book were very well introduced and rounded. Their personalities were shining in this book, and there were so many to choose from. Lesley Pearse kept really pleasant balance between cold and warm characters, giving a taste of both and keeping the diversity going. I really liked the way author chose different ages for the characters, so everyone, from young to old will find someone to relate to. I do love books where characters have a voice, and this book didn’t disappoint me with that, but the transition between different perspectives was sometimes difficult to follow for me, as it just starts from new paragraph. That’s why, for me, this book required some concentration and suitable atmosphere to read it.
The plot of this book starts in 1960 in West London but quite quickly it is transferred to Nightingales mansion in Burley. Well, it was way before I was born and there are so many clues of the 60ies, but during whole book I had the feeling of early nineteenth century. It was because of the elegant and refined writing style used in this book, everything in this book screamed of politeness and rich mannerism, that’s why it felt like reading one of the classic books.
The story of this novel was flowing very smoothly, without any story changing twists or turns. There were some really interesting discoveries along the way, which made the book interesting, but it was not very fast paced for me. L. Pearse was discussing really interesting topics in this book, such as: children growing up with lack of parental love; the strong bond between siblings (in this case twins); how paedophilia and child abuse affects young kids mentally and physically; why people choose to live away from society; and I believe some of them were taken from author’s own colourful life.
As I mentioned before, the writing style of this book is very refined and sophisticated, and for me it is not easy to read such work, but very refreshing at the same time. The chapters of this book are not very short, but it changes between different characters perspectives, so they are not boring. I would like to throw in a disclaimer, there are some nasty things discussed in this book, so if you have an eager sensitive child who would like to read this novel, it could be a little distressing. The ending of this book wasn’t very exciting, but it was well deserved and rounded the story fully, leaving me satisfied with the outcome of this story. So to conclude, I enjoyed reading this rich novel, filled with unexpected writing style, well rounded, interesting characters, and it discusses very wide range of life aspects. Get it, read it, enjoy it!
Was given this book by publisher and NetGalley for honest review.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Host (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
The concept of an entire movie playing out on a computer screen isn’t exactly a new one. A great example of this style of filmmaking was 2018 movie Searching, which I am a huge fan of. Back in 2014, Unfriended took the online chat room and managed to turn it into a horror movie, proving what could be achieved within such basic confines. And now, new Shudder horror Host continues in that theme, presenting us with a Zoom chat that goes horribly wrong.
Where Host differs from Unfriended is in its timely release. Filmed over a 12 week period during lockdown, and taking place entirely within the timeframe of a 60 minute Zoom call, Host portrays what we’ve all experienced in recent months – the socially distanced meetup with friends or colleagues online. And then it throws in some supernatural jump scares to terrify us into never wanting to participate in one ever again!
Host follows six friends, as they logon for their weekly Zoom catch-up. Only this time, Haley has suggested that they also hold an online séance, and has invited Irish spiritualist Seylan to join in and guide them through the experience. Before Seylan joins the chat though, we get to spend some time with the friends and you can’t help but feel at ease with the familiarity of seeing a group of people chatting together on screen, each in a different location. Even more so if you’re watching all of this play out on a small screen, as I was.
It’s clear from the start though that some of the group aren’t looking to take the séance too seriously, with one of them suggesting that they also play a drinking game. Whenever Seylan says the phrase “astral plane”, they decide they will try and down a drink without her realising what they’re up to. Consequently, it’s not long before one of the group has managed to ‘disrespect the spirits’, and when Seylan gets cut off the chat following connection issues, all manner of strange things begin happening to each of the group.
A number of them are in darkened rooms, so obviously you find yourself straining your eyes, searching for something out of the ordinary in every corner of the screen. There are the usual strange noises, lights flashing, with the occasional rational explanation behind it. And then there are plenty of big scares too – practical, effective effects that really pack a punch and are truly terrifying.
Important to all of this is the believability of our cast. Thankfully, their performances all feel believable, their friendship and conversation natural. I did find Teddy, the only male of the group, to be pretty annoying, but luckily he only appears briefly at the beginning and at the end of the movie.
Host came about after director and co-writer, Rob Savage, made a Zoom prank, which went viral after sharing on Twitter back in April. It’s a fortunate side effect of the pandemic that filmmakers have been forced to explore new and creative ways of making movies. And Host is an excellent, shining example of just how well that can pay off.
Where Host differs from Unfriended is in its timely release. Filmed over a 12 week period during lockdown, and taking place entirely within the timeframe of a 60 minute Zoom call, Host portrays what we’ve all experienced in recent months – the socially distanced meetup with friends or colleagues online. And then it throws in some supernatural jump scares to terrify us into never wanting to participate in one ever again!
Host follows six friends, as they logon for their weekly Zoom catch-up. Only this time, Haley has suggested that they also hold an online séance, and has invited Irish spiritualist Seylan to join in and guide them through the experience. Before Seylan joins the chat though, we get to spend some time with the friends and you can’t help but feel at ease with the familiarity of seeing a group of people chatting together on screen, each in a different location. Even more so if you’re watching all of this play out on a small screen, as I was.
It’s clear from the start though that some of the group aren’t looking to take the séance too seriously, with one of them suggesting that they also play a drinking game. Whenever Seylan says the phrase “astral plane”, they decide they will try and down a drink without her realising what they’re up to. Consequently, it’s not long before one of the group has managed to ‘disrespect the spirits’, and when Seylan gets cut off the chat following connection issues, all manner of strange things begin happening to each of the group.
A number of them are in darkened rooms, so obviously you find yourself straining your eyes, searching for something out of the ordinary in every corner of the screen. There are the usual strange noises, lights flashing, with the occasional rational explanation behind it. And then there are plenty of big scares too – practical, effective effects that really pack a punch and are truly terrifying.
Important to all of this is the believability of our cast. Thankfully, their performances all feel believable, their friendship and conversation natural. I did find Teddy, the only male of the group, to be pretty annoying, but luckily he only appears briefly at the beginning and at the end of the movie.
Host came about after director and co-writer, Rob Savage, made a Zoom prank, which went viral after sharing on Twitter back in April. It’s a fortunate side effect of the pandemic that filmmakers have been forced to explore new and creative ways of making movies. And Host is an excellent, shining example of just how well that can pay off.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated CODA (2021) in Movies
Feb 25, 2022
Fairly Standard Fare
I am a film completionist, meaning I must see a film through to the end no matter what. At times, I take a break and come back to it (figuring I might not have been in the right mood for the film) but in other times, I fight through whatever emotion I am feeling (most of the time boredom) to keep focused on what the filmmakers are attempting to do in their film - and, at times, I am rewarded for this perseverance.
Such is the case with the Oscar Nominated film CODA. Written and Directed by Sian Heder (who was Oscar Nominated for her Screenplay), CODA tells the tale of Ruby who is a CODA (Child of Deaf Adults), who runs afoul of her family (especially her parents) and their expectations of her.
For the first half of this film it is pretty standard fare - one that has been shown on many, many movie screens throughout the years. Even though this one had the added “plot twist” of Ruby being able to hear while her Parents and Brothers are all deaf, the first half of this film never rose above the ordinary.
But, something happened in the 2nd half of the film, I fell in love with this family and their foibles and was rooting for them all to resolve their issues and for Ruby to get what she wanted.
Credit for this must go to Writer/Director Heder, who is not deaf, who came up with the idea/concept for the film and then felt a strong obligation to “get it right” for the deaf community. And get it right she does.
Her first good move was to cast Oscar Winner Marlee Matlin, a well known deaf performer and advocate for the Deaf Community. She brought instant credibility and star power to this film and she also insisted that the other 2 deaf characters in this film be performed by deaf performers.
Troy Kotsur is Oscar Nominated as Best Supporting Actor for his turn as Ruby’s father and he, for the first 1/2 of this film, acts in black and white - either funny (the comic relief) or angry (the drama) and I was unimpressed by him, but - just like the film - his performance gains some nuance in the 2nd half and he does have the “Oscar Moment” in this part of the movie that makes him a deserving nominee.
Emilia Jones is “just fine” in the lead role of Ruby and Daniel Durant (the other deaf actor in this film who plays her brother) and Lonnie Farmer (who plays her teacher) are also “fine”. Thank goodness we had the star wattage of Matlin to elevate the first half of the film before things got interesting - and nuanced - in the 2nd half.
Kudos to CODA for shining a light on a group that does not normally get the light shone upon it and kudos to the Academy for nominating this Sundance darling in the Best Picture category.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the Oscar Nominated film CODA. Written and Directed by Sian Heder (who was Oscar Nominated for her Screenplay), CODA tells the tale of Ruby who is a CODA (Child of Deaf Adults), who runs afoul of her family (especially her parents) and their expectations of her.
For the first half of this film it is pretty standard fare - one that has been shown on many, many movie screens throughout the years. Even though this one had the added “plot twist” of Ruby being able to hear while her Parents and Brothers are all deaf, the first half of this film never rose above the ordinary.
But, something happened in the 2nd half of the film, I fell in love with this family and their foibles and was rooting for them all to resolve their issues and for Ruby to get what she wanted.
Credit for this must go to Writer/Director Heder, who is not deaf, who came up with the idea/concept for the film and then felt a strong obligation to “get it right” for the deaf community. And get it right she does.
Her first good move was to cast Oscar Winner Marlee Matlin, a well known deaf performer and advocate for the Deaf Community. She brought instant credibility and star power to this film and she also insisted that the other 2 deaf characters in this film be performed by deaf performers.
Troy Kotsur is Oscar Nominated as Best Supporting Actor for his turn as Ruby’s father and he, for the first 1/2 of this film, acts in black and white - either funny (the comic relief) or angry (the drama) and I was unimpressed by him, but - just like the film - his performance gains some nuance in the 2nd half and he does have the “Oscar Moment” in this part of the movie that makes him a deserving nominee.
Emilia Jones is “just fine” in the lead role of Ruby and Daniel Durant (the other deaf actor in this film who plays her brother) and Lonnie Farmer (who plays her teacher) are also “fine”. Thank goodness we had the star wattage of Matlin to elevate the first half of the film before things got interesting - and nuanced - in the 2nd half.
Kudos to CODA for shining a light on a group that does not normally get the light shone upon it and kudos to the Academy for nominating this Sundance darling in the Best Picture category.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)