Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Thoughts on King Kong
Characters – Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isn’t impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many people’s first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story – The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we haven’t seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorer’s journeys in the world.
Settings – The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects – The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Characters – Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isn’t impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many people’s first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story – The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we haven’t seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorer’s journeys in the world.
Settings – The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects – The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Jamie (131 KP) rated An Eccentric Engagement in Books
May 24, 2017
Sweet romance (1 more)
Good commentary about social justice
Does more telling than showing (1 more)
Felt more like a lecture than a love story
A sweet regency romance
So this was a bit of a non-traditional romance as it takes place after the courtship. Sorrow and Bertram are engaged to be married and the two return to Sorrow’s country home for the wedding. The two are very clearly in the early stages of excitement over a new relationship, stealing kissing and admiring each other — the “puppy love” stage. Neither of the two truly love each other but are already prepared for marriage. The actual romance was more told than shown and it unfortunately just didn’t work for me. The romantic aspect seemed to take a back seat to the other two major plot lines: Sorrow’s altruistic family and Bert’s difficult relationship with his overbearing father.
Both of these plot lines are actually really good, but I felt that they both needed more time to be developed and would have been better in a full length novel. All of the conflict was resolved in a few pages with barely any resistance and the discussion felt more like a lecture that was repeated multiple times. Not that the message was bad, I appreciated the way they approach discussing the mentally ill and the elderly, and I actually liked the Marchand’s way of life, but I think it could have been delivered better.
It also didn’t help that Sorrow kind of annoyed me. When she talks to other people to try and explain her views it again turns into a mildly pretentious lecture. Her insistence on absolute harmony and willingness to throw everything out of the window if she didn’t get her way was also extremely grating. Creating needless drama for the sake of drama is not a good way of filling up pages.
Overall its not bad, it’s a cute and clean love story that will appeal to folks with a strong sense of social justice. It was a fluffy and pleasant way to pass the time, but I didn’t feel much of anything while reading it.
Both of these plot lines are actually really good, but I felt that they both needed more time to be developed and would have been better in a full length novel. All of the conflict was resolved in a few pages with barely any resistance and the discussion felt more like a lecture that was repeated multiple times. Not that the message was bad, I appreciated the way they approach discussing the mentally ill and the elderly, and I actually liked the Marchand’s way of life, but I think it could have been delivered better.
It also didn’t help that Sorrow kind of annoyed me. When she talks to other people to try and explain her views it again turns into a mildly pretentious lecture. Her insistence on absolute harmony and willingness to throw everything out of the window if she didn’t get her way was also extremely grating. Creating needless drama for the sake of drama is not a good way of filling up pages.
Overall its not bad, it’s a cute and clean love story that will appeal to folks with a strong sense of social justice. It was a fluffy and pleasant way to pass the time, but I didn’t feel much of anything while reading it.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Feed Your Athlete: A Cookbook to Fuel High Performance in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I am extremely impressed by this book. The sheer amount of work that went into making this such a valuable tool will, I hope, bounce back to benefit many people.
This is not just a cookbook. This is a reference book. The book starts with a rundown of the different kinds of athletes and their specific dietary needs (with constant reminder that everyone is different and you should check with your doctor or dietician to confirm diet changes). Then it provides practical's on how to meet those needs. Not just recipes (that are all divided up by high or low fiber, low fat, high carb, and high protein) but also meal plans, detailed appendix, water replacement recipes, recovery meals and drinks, and even athlete-friendly deserts. It covers how to determine how many calories you need, how to balance your energy, measure your BMI and BFP, and eating for each stage of training, up through recovery from a performance or event.
The recipes themselves are detailed and easy to follow, and most of them fall into the Easy category (which automatically gives it a plus). It includes a rundown of the categories, prep time, ingredients, yield, make ahead and freeze plans, substitutions in case you want to make it gluten-free or vegetarian, and the breakdown of nutrition information.
There were a few recipes, mostly baking recipes like muffins and breads, that I thought could have used less sugar. There are lots of ways to substitute sugar, oil, and eggs by using things like avocado, apple sauce, peanut butter, honey, agave, etc. and I thought there could have been more of that happening. There were a few drinks that seemed like they had too much sugar in them as well. Sugar really is an athlete’s poison (actually it’s everyone’s poison). And honestly I don’t see how a fudge pop with pudding and whipped topping as the only ingredients belong in a healthy athlete cookbook. But even including those few recipes, this book still blew me away. It should be a staple in every health-conscious home, and every athlete’s shelf.
This is not just a cookbook. This is a reference book. The book starts with a rundown of the different kinds of athletes and their specific dietary needs (with constant reminder that everyone is different and you should check with your doctor or dietician to confirm diet changes). Then it provides practical's on how to meet those needs. Not just recipes (that are all divided up by high or low fiber, low fat, high carb, and high protein) but also meal plans, detailed appendix, water replacement recipes, recovery meals and drinks, and even athlete-friendly deserts. It covers how to determine how many calories you need, how to balance your energy, measure your BMI and BFP, and eating for each stage of training, up through recovery from a performance or event.
The recipes themselves are detailed and easy to follow, and most of them fall into the Easy category (which automatically gives it a plus). It includes a rundown of the categories, prep time, ingredients, yield, make ahead and freeze plans, substitutions in case you want to make it gluten-free or vegetarian, and the breakdown of nutrition information.
There were a few recipes, mostly baking recipes like muffins and breads, that I thought could have used less sugar. There are lots of ways to substitute sugar, oil, and eggs by using things like avocado, apple sauce, peanut butter, honey, agave, etc. and I thought there could have been more of that happening. There were a few drinks that seemed like they had too much sugar in them as well. Sugar really is an athlete’s poison (actually it’s everyone’s poison). And honestly I don’t see how a fudge pop with pudding and whipped topping as the only ingredients belong in a healthy athlete cookbook. But even including those few recipes, this book still blew me away. It should be a staple in every health-conscious home, and every athlete’s shelf.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated A Sherlock Holmes Devotional: Uncovering the Mysteries of God in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Every once in a while I read a book that is just trying way too hard to be cool. Sadly, this is one of those books.
Sherlock Holmes was an amazing detective. The Bible is an amazing book. So why not make a Sherlock Holmes devotional? The answer is because the two are about totally different things, and when you try to make a secular thing spiritual, you end up with poison.
I requested this book with suspicion (the same publisher had a bunch of other awesome-looking books, and this was the only one I was iffy about), but I hoped it would surprise and maybe impress me. Sadly, it’s actually worse than I imagined.
For example: The first devotional is about the Case of the Cardboard Box, where a woman has a package delivered to her with two severed ears. The devotional goes on to praise Sherlock for solving the crime, and then diverts to “We can hear the voice of God. Sherlock said the ear is amazing. See how these two are connected?” And yes obviously that’s a paraphrase. But it was the point of the devotional.
In staying in this same idea, let me tell you a story and give you a practical on how it made me feel.
Did you know in the Appalachian mountains, some people put Mountain Dew in their babies bottles? It’s cheaper than milk and the kids get addicted to it young. Obviously it causes major health issues like diabetes and sever obesity, the kids end up loosing their teeth before they even break skin, and (though I haven’t researched it, I’m sure) that some have died.
In the same way, the Bible tells us that newer Christians thrive on smaller amounts of doctrine, simple statements of truth. In the new testament, a Christian not moving past that stage is considered an adult still drinking baby milk. But the milk isn’t enough, and eventually, their faith will die if they don’t move forward. So Mountain Dew is like Baby Milk. See how the two are connected?
Sorry, but this book isn’t baby food. It’s poison. I love Sherlock and I love Jesus. But I find this book offensive
Sherlock Holmes was an amazing detective. The Bible is an amazing book. So why not make a Sherlock Holmes devotional? The answer is because the two are about totally different things, and when you try to make a secular thing spiritual, you end up with poison.
I requested this book with suspicion (the same publisher had a bunch of other awesome-looking books, and this was the only one I was iffy about), but I hoped it would surprise and maybe impress me. Sadly, it’s actually worse than I imagined.
For example: The first devotional is about the Case of the Cardboard Box, where a woman has a package delivered to her with two severed ears. The devotional goes on to praise Sherlock for solving the crime, and then diverts to “We can hear the voice of God. Sherlock said the ear is amazing. See how these two are connected?” And yes obviously that’s a paraphrase. But it was the point of the devotional.
In staying in this same idea, let me tell you a story and give you a practical on how it made me feel.
Did you know in the Appalachian mountains, some people put Mountain Dew in their babies bottles? It’s cheaper than milk and the kids get addicted to it young. Obviously it causes major health issues like diabetes and sever obesity, the kids end up loosing their teeth before they even break skin, and (though I haven’t researched it, I’m sure) that some have died.
In the same way, the Bible tells us that newer Christians thrive on smaller amounts of doctrine, simple statements of truth. In the new testament, a Christian not moving past that stage is considered an adult still drinking baby milk. But the milk isn’t enough, and eventually, their faith will die if they don’t move forward. So Mountain Dew is like Baby Milk. See how the two are connected?
Sorry, but this book isn’t baby food. It’s poison. I love Sherlock and I love Jesus. But I find this book offensive
Debbiereadsbook (1539 KP) rated A Late Summer Night's Dream in Books
Mar 7, 2019
too stinking cute AND warm and fuzzies!
A mix up with pocus leads Simeon and Anthony to have a bit of an uncomfortable first half, but after the interval, they share a giggle, and after the play, they share a pie and a pint. It's clear they want each other, but Anthony is still hurting following the death of his husband 4 years ago. Can the much younger Simeon unfreeze his heart?
I came across the book on Facebook, and something called to me about it, not exactly sure what, but you know I'm all about sharing my book feelings and I felt this book PULLED me. And I'm so glad it did!
Simeon is late for the play and finds someone else in "his" seat. Only they aren't. Seat Sixteen is just the the of man who makes Simeon swoon and after the interval, they bond over the bad acting on stage. Simeon makes a move and takes Anthony home. But Anthony runs and Simeon's heart is broken.
Why he runs, is because he is still hurting after his husband died and Anthony has been alone since then. That much is obvious. But meeting Simeon knocks Anthony off his axis and it scares him. At least, that's what I think.
Because Anthony doesn't get a say, only Simeon, and that's why I knocked that star off. I wanted Anthony to explain how he was feeling in more depth, especially his reaction to Simeon, to the visit to the pub, and after, at Simeon's flat. I needed him, and I didn't get him.
It's not overly explicit, just the right amount for these two. It's not about the sex between them, it's more about the love that blooms, so very quickly. And it is quick! Two meetings, is all but I liked that here.
Plonking itself firmly on both the warm and fuzzies AND too stinking cute shelf, I thoroughly enjoyed this and hope to read more by this pair of authors, maybe something longer and more in depth.
4 solid stars, but ONLY because Anthony doesn't get a say!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
I came across the book on Facebook, and something called to me about it, not exactly sure what, but you know I'm all about sharing my book feelings and I felt this book PULLED me. And I'm so glad it did!
Simeon is late for the play and finds someone else in "his" seat. Only they aren't. Seat Sixteen is just the the of man who makes Simeon swoon and after the interval, they bond over the bad acting on stage. Simeon makes a move and takes Anthony home. But Anthony runs and Simeon's heart is broken.
Why he runs, is because he is still hurting after his husband died and Anthony has been alone since then. That much is obvious. But meeting Simeon knocks Anthony off his axis and it scares him. At least, that's what I think.
Because Anthony doesn't get a say, only Simeon, and that's why I knocked that star off. I wanted Anthony to explain how he was feeling in more depth, especially his reaction to Simeon, to the visit to the pub, and after, at Simeon's flat. I needed him, and I didn't get him.
It's not overly explicit, just the right amount for these two. It's not about the sex between them, it's more about the love that blooms, so very quickly. And it is quick! Two meetings, is all but I liked that here.
Plonking itself firmly on both the warm and fuzzies AND too stinking cute shelf, I thoroughly enjoyed this and hope to read more by this pair of authors, maybe something longer and more in depth.
4 solid stars, but ONLY because Anthony doesn't get a say!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Next to Die in Books
Apr 4, 2019
OK, I won't lie, this was a really strange book. But, I also found it oddly captivating. I didn't realize until I started it--my mistake--that this was book #10 in a series. I am not a fan of picking up mid-series, though Goodreads tells me I read books #1 and #3 a while back. And I do somewhat remember Simon Waterhouse. Still, I felt like an outsider looking in somewhat, and I bet I would have enjoyed this one more if I knew more of the backstory of Simon, his wife, Charlie, and their investigative team.
However, the mystery here stands alone, and while it's bizarre (I can guarantee the motive in this one will be one of the most strange and enjoyable you'll have seen in quite some time), it's compelling and even funny. The story unfolds from the point of view of Kim, who is telling things via a self-written true crime book that details her involvement in the Billy Dead Mates murder investigation. Then we get Simon and Charlie's view of the Billy investigation. And, finally, the writings of a rather crazed feminist reporter named Sondra Halliday who claims Billy is killing women due to misogynist reasons.
It all culminates in a detailed yet surprisingly suspenseful story--Kim is center stage, but also a suspect in some ways. She's a bitter, funny comedian, and I really liked her character. Hannah captures interactions well, and I enjoyed both Kim and grumpy yet brilliant Simon. The whole book was very different for a thriller, but oddly enjoyable too. There were definitely times when I wished things would hurry along; there's a side plot where Charlie obsesses about her sister, which just seems annoying, and some of Sondra's rants are just a bit too much. Still, it's easy to get caught up in the story, especially Kim's book and Charlie and Simon's investigation. The format is different but engaging.
Overall, while this one was a little strange and slow, I did enjoy it. Hannah is a great writer, and her characters are vivid, flawed, and humorous. The plot is definitely different, but it will draw you in. 3.5+ stars.
However, the mystery here stands alone, and while it's bizarre (I can guarantee the motive in this one will be one of the most strange and enjoyable you'll have seen in quite some time), it's compelling and even funny. The story unfolds from the point of view of Kim, who is telling things via a self-written true crime book that details her involvement in the Billy Dead Mates murder investigation. Then we get Simon and Charlie's view of the Billy investigation. And, finally, the writings of a rather crazed feminist reporter named Sondra Halliday who claims Billy is killing women due to misogynist reasons.
It all culminates in a detailed yet surprisingly suspenseful story--Kim is center stage, but also a suspect in some ways. She's a bitter, funny comedian, and I really liked her character. Hannah captures interactions well, and I enjoyed both Kim and grumpy yet brilliant Simon. The whole book was very different for a thriller, but oddly enjoyable too. There were definitely times when I wished things would hurry along; there's a side plot where Charlie obsesses about her sister, which just seems annoying, and some of Sondra's rants are just a bit too much. Still, it's easy to get caught up in the story, especially Kim's book and Charlie and Simon's investigation. The format is different but engaging.
Overall, while this one was a little strange and slow, I did enjoy it. Hannah is a great writer, and her characters are vivid, flawed, and humorous. The plot is definitely different, but it will draw you in. 3.5+ stars.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
More like Hellno
#hellboy is an #abomination, a brain dead overlong shit show of bad decisions & sheer laziness. I can honestly say i was so pumped for this film but it was such a monstrosoty that i considered walking out after just 30mins. Lets kick this off so i can at least pretend i havent wasted my night with this dross. To sum the film up its a cross between #eastenders & #kingsman (no not the good kingsman either that dire sequel #kingsmanthegoldencircle) & as you can imagine it doesnt work at all. Its not gritty, its not #funny, its not #stylish & its not well made, in fact its also not even half as good as it seems to think it is either coming across so #happy & smug with itself its practically flipping you the middle finger the entire run time. Tacky is a great word i would use to describe this movie, tacky & childish with #humour that wouldn't go a miss in a kids tv program (eg burp jokes, dribble jokes & #jokes about kissing old ladies). Acting is poor everyone just looks & talks half arsed like they can't be bothered, delivering emotionless lines without conviction making dialog a bland back & forth chore. I hope you like bickering too because theres a #hell of alot of pointless bickering scenes that just feel unnecessary. Not one character is developed or likeable not even hellboy himself with the #villain #millajovovich feeling like a bad guy in a stage play just minus the hissing. Cgi is so woefully bad is downright embarrassing sticking out like a saw thumb ruining the forgettable action scenes. Camera work is choppy & the film is badly edited with disorienting quick cuts. Sets & #creatures are bland/unimaginative & prosthetics feel cheaply made (even hellboys face feels off round the eyes). Plot was so paint by numbers i lost interest midway & put my head in my hands when the terrible climax hit (Talk about build up with no pay off). Hellboy ultimatly prooves filling a film with #violence, swearing, popular #music & #popculture references doesnt make your film cool if everything else around it lacks. Lazy forgettable boring poorly made shite. Avoid. #odeon #odeonlimitless #superhero #ronperlman #strangerthings #dc #guillermodeltoro #demons #horror #gore #comic
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Widows (2018) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Perfection
#widows is this years biggest surprise. Just like a punch to the gut its full of #pain, suffering an overload of #emotion & shock. My goodness what an exceptional & #stunning piece of work this is. As soon as the film opened is was hanging off my seat, with an opening which not only sets the stage for what's to come but showcases just how talented #stevemcqueen is as a director. This calm before the storm style of directing works so well that it constantly lulls you into a false sense of security (by using #beautiful/unique camera work, a powerful score, subbtle #humour, interesting characters & deep character connections) to pull you in which are then followed instantly by incredibly tense action or scenes of #brutal #violence or shocking emotional breakdowns which hit you hard like a slap across the face. Long but never once #boring this is such a heavy, bleak & #depressing film not only about grief, loss, #broken trust & #survival but also about #racism, corruption, power abuse & the using of money & #religion as a control tool. I dont want to spoil to much because its best to go in blind here to feel the full impact of the #film & its twists. #Widowsmovie is so powerful & full of so much depth I felt like id been hit by a train walking out. Everything flows together so perfectly here from its pacing to its plot & its cinematography right down to its sound & set design. Theres also stellar acting all across the board here & i mean seriously impressive preformances by a good chunk of the cast which makes sure each & every characters pain, grief & struggle through #life is felt deeply, making it at times increadibly #heartbreaking & tuff to watch. This film overall was such an engaging/draining & absorbing thrill ride full of intelligent & current themes that I cant wait to see it again & delve deeper into its layers. Absolutely mind blowing & one of the most tense & well constructed #heist films ive seen in a long long time. #odeon #odeonlimitless #filmbuff #filmcritic #thursdaythoughts #violadavis #collinfarrell #liamnesson #danielkaluuya #love