Search
Search results
Merissa (13000 KP) rated Taken by the Alien Triton King (Abducted by the Ruthless Royal) in Books
Jun 2, 2025
TAKEN BY THE ALIEN TRITON KING is part of the Abducted by the Ruthless Royal series. I'm thinking these books can be read in any order and as standalones, which is my case.
Samantha is part of a group of scientists charged with finding another world, as Earth is no longer viable!!! Kaeris is the King of the Ondrithar, who was initially unfazed by the humans, until he met Samantha and acknowledged her as his mate.
This is a fast-paced novella that is told from both perspectives, so hold onto your hats! There is a full story here, even if parts of it could have been expanded to give a bigger, better picture. There is steam, but only for one scene. The rest is s3xual tension.
A quick coffee-break book that I enjoyed reading and have no hesitation in recommending.
** Same worded review will appear elsewhere. **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jun 2, 2025
Samantha is part of a group of scientists charged with finding another world, as Earth is no longer viable!!! Kaeris is the King of the Ondrithar, who was initially unfazed by the humans, until he met Samantha and acknowledged her as his mate.
This is a fast-paced novella that is told from both perspectives, so hold onto your hats! There is a full story here, even if parts of it could have been expanded to give a bigger, better picture. There is steam, but only for one scene. The rest is s3xual tension.
A quick coffee-break book that I enjoyed reading and have no hesitation in recommending.
** Same worded review will appear elsewhere. **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jun 2, 2025
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My Unfair Lady in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Unfair Lady by Kathryne Kennedy
Genre: Historical fiction, Historical Romance
Rating: 4/5
Summary (from the back of the book):
HE CREATED THE PERFECT WOMAN… the impoverished Duke of Monchester despises the rich Americans who flock to London, seeking to buy their way into the ranks of the British peerage. So when railroad heiress Summer Wine Lee offers him a king’s ransom if he’ll teach her to become a proper lady, he’s prepared to rebuff her. But when he meets the petite beauty with the knife in her boot, it’s not her fortune he finds impossible to resist…
…FOR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER MAN. Frontier-bred Summer Wine Lee has no interest in winning over London society—it’s the New York bluebloods and her future mother-in-law she’s determined to impress. She knows the cost of smoothing her rough-and-tumble frontier edges will be high. But she never imagined it might cost her her heart…
Review: This book is so cute! The dialogue is lively, the characters are likeable (or in the case of the “bad ones”, hate-able), and the images and descriptions are clear and visible. I loved it by the end of the first chapter.
Summer was my kind of girl. She grinned when things were funny instead of trying to remain indifferent, she wasn’t afraid to show how she felt—but she could also throw a knife, shoot an arrow better than the woman champion of their day, and mount and ride a horse bareback (which I think is so cool!). She has a love for animals—and odd ones at that. She owns a three-legged dog, a dog with four legs but the size of a small horse, a monkey, a pocket-sized puppy, a fox, and a cat with no back legs (it sits in a cart and rolls around the room). She was raised by an Indian (one of those childhood dreams that I never quite left behind…) and he was the one who had taught her all that great stuff. Watching her try to settle into society was hilarious.
MY UNFAIR LADY has a lot of tension in it—both inner turmoil from poor Summer, and also sexual tension between the characters. However, it wasn’t overpowering because was so funny. I found that I laughed just as often as tension was built, so there was a constant, even balance. The end was very exciting, and I found it impossible to put down. Overall, reading this book was a hilarious and wonderful experience, and an unforgettable escape from reality.
Plot: My Fair Lady (the movie) shows a girl who is transformed to a lady, then the man falls in love with her. I love the change that has taken place in MY UNFAIR LADY—The man doesn’t want to change her, because he loves her the way she is. I like this plot better than the first!
Writing: The writing was decent, acceptable, and more readable than a lot of newly published romances. Though it wasn’t Dante, it wasn’t hard to read either.
Content: Refreshingly, there was no language in this book. Summer has her own set of expletives, but they weren’t offensive (“Tarnation!”). As far as sex, let’s just say there were several scenes (pages) in this book that I skipped completely, and just started reading again where the dialogue picked up. I didn’t miss anything important.
Recommendation: Ages 18+ to lovers of Historical fiction, Romance in general, or anyone who loves a girl who can shoot a gun, wield a knife, or use a bow and arrow better than a man!
**Thanks to Danielle at Sourcebooks for supplying my review copy!**
Genre: Historical fiction, Historical Romance
Rating: 4/5
Summary (from the back of the book):
HE CREATED THE PERFECT WOMAN… the impoverished Duke of Monchester despises the rich Americans who flock to London, seeking to buy their way into the ranks of the British peerage. So when railroad heiress Summer Wine Lee offers him a king’s ransom if he’ll teach her to become a proper lady, he’s prepared to rebuff her. But when he meets the petite beauty with the knife in her boot, it’s not her fortune he finds impossible to resist…
…FOR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER MAN. Frontier-bred Summer Wine Lee has no interest in winning over London society—it’s the New York bluebloods and her future mother-in-law she’s determined to impress. She knows the cost of smoothing her rough-and-tumble frontier edges will be high. But she never imagined it might cost her her heart…
Review: This book is so cute! The dialogue is lively, the characters are likeable (or in the case of the “bad ones”, hate-able), and the images and descriptions are clear and visible. I loved it by the end of the first chapter.
Summer was my kind of girl. She grinned when things were funny instead of trying to remain indifferent, she wasn’t afraid to show how she felt—but she could also throw a knife, shoot an arrow better than the woman champion of their day, and mount and ride a horse bareback (which I think is so cool!). She has a love for animals—and odd ones at that. She owns a three-legged dog, a dog with four legs but the size of a small horse, a monkey, a pocket-sized puppy, a fox, and a cat with no back legs (it sits in a cart and rolls around the room). She was raised by an Indian (one of those childhood dreams that I never quite left behind…) and he was the one who had taught her all that great stuff. Watching her try to settle into society was hilarious.
MY UNFAIR LADY has a lot of tension in it—both inner turmoil from poor Summer, and also sexual tension between the characters. However, it wasn’t overpowering because was so funny. I found that I laughed just as often as tension was built, so there was a constant, even balance. The end was very exciting, and I found it impossible to put down. Overall, reading this book was a hilarious and wonderful experience, and an unforgettable escape from reality.
Plot: My Fair Lady (the movie) shows a girl who is transformed to a lady, then the man falls in love with her. I love the change that has taken place in MY UNFAIR LADY—The man doesn’t want to change her, because he loves her the way she is. I like this plot better than the first!
Writing: The writing was decent, acceptable, and more readable than a lot of newly published romances. Though it wasn’t Dante, it wasn’t hard to read either.
Content: Refreshingly, there was no language in this book. Summer has her own set of expletives, but they weren’t offensive (“Tarnation!”). As far as sex, let’s just say there were several scenes (pages) in this book that I skipped completely, and just started reading again where the dialogue picked up. I didn’t miss anything important.
Recommendation: Ages 18+ to lovers of Historical fiction, Romance in general, or anyone who loves a girl who can shoot a gun, wield a knife, or use a bow and arrow better than a man!
**Thanks to Danielle at Sourcebooks for supplying my review copy!**
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aftermath (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aftermath starts by showing us a man struggling to walk through an abandoned landscape. We then flash back to one month earlier where we learn about an ongoing war between America and Israel. We meet or protagonist Hunter (Thomason) as he listens to the ongoing war before nuclear explosion hit leading him to rescue a young family. The group also meet another survivor in the road but find a place to stay underground in a farmhouse with another small group of survivors. Hunter explains they will need to spend at least a month underground while the fall out of the nuclear attack settles. We follow the group through the month as tension rise over time.
When I saw this and the title I was actually looking to settle down and watch a horror like film, but what we got was so much more. First off there is no horror involved, it is all tension building character development. We see the group over 30 days and how their situation gets worse as each day goes by, with only the radio to update them. We get to see how the radiation slowly changes and infects them while others try to get in. it plays on a range of emotions and comes off very bleak. This is a great story of the struggle to survive after a nuclear attack from the point of view of the innocent victims. (7/10)
Actor Review
C.J. Thomason: Hunter doctor and survivalist who leads the group of survivors as they try to make it through the attack in a farm basement. He tries to treat everyone who has issues but even with his skills he can’t save everyone from the situation. C.J. gives a good performance as a reluctant leader. (7/10)
hunter
Monica Keena: Elizabeth stranger picked up on the side of the road, she stays with the group and sometimes looks out for younger members by her calm nature. Monica gives a solid performance but sometimes struggles in the action scenes. (6/10)
monica
Edward Furlong: Brad over protective redneck who doesn’t want to let the group in and is always against the decision to let them in. he is a hot head but as the time goes by he wants to look after the group as much as the rest. Edward gives a good performance and does a good job with the only character that shows full emotion. (7/10)
ed
Support Cast: Aftermath’s supporting cast is mainly extra people in the basement who go through the struggles but also includes the people outside who are too far gone to let in.
Director Review: Peter Engert – Peter does a good job directing Aftermath creating genuine tension throughout. (8/10)
Action: Aftermath only has a few action scenes and they are quick, but each comes off desperate like the situation the people are in. (7/10)
Thriller: Aftermath really pulls you in as you want to know what happens to the group and feel for them when things start to get worse. (8/10)
Settings: Aftermath uses its isolation setting that the group creates for themselves to survive really well, as it keeps us unaware of what is going on outside. (9/10)
Suggestion: Aftermath is worth watching, but I do feel like the casual fan might not enjoy this, it really will appeal to those who enjoy a solid drama about survival. (Try It)
Best Part: The bleakness that surrounds the story.
Worst Part: Aftermath can come off feeling a little bit slow.
Believability: Aftermath tackles a potential real problem the world could face. (7/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Overall: A Great Unwatched Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/24/aftermath-2012/
When I saw this and the title I was actually looking to settle down and watch a horror like film, but what we got was so much more. First off there is no horror involved, it is all tension building character development. We see the group over 30 days and how their situation gets worse as each day goes by, with only the radio to update them. We get to see how the radiation slowly changes and infects them while others try to get in. it plays on a range of emotions and comes off very bleak. This is a great story of the struggle to survive after a nuclear attack from the point of view of the innocent victims. (7/10)
Actor Review
C.J. Thomason: Hunter doctor and survivalist who leads the group of survivors as they try to make it through the attack in a farm basement. He tries to treat everyone who has issues but even with his skills he can’t save everyone from the situation. C.J. gives a good performance as a reluctant leader. (7/10)
hunter
Monica Keena: Elizabeth stranger picked up on the side of the road, she stays with the group and sometimes looks out for younger members by her calm nature. Monica gives a solid performance but sometimes struggles in the action scenes. (6/10)
monica
Edward Furlong: Brad over protective redneck who doesn’t want to let the group in and is always against the decision to let them in. he is a hot head but as the time goes by he wants to look after the group as much as the rest. Edward gives a good performance and does a good job with the only character that shows full emotion. (7/10)
ed
Support Cast: Aftermath’s supporting cast is mainly extra people in the basement who go through the struggles but also includes the people outside who are too far gone to let in.
Director Review: Peter Engert – Peter does a good job directing Aftermath creating genuine tension throughout. (8/10)
Action: Aftermath only has a few action scenes and they are quick, but each comes off desperate like the situation the people are in. (7/10)
Thriller: Aftermath really pulls you in as you want to know what happens to the group and feel for them when things start to get worse. (8/10)
Settings: Aftermath uses its isolation setting that the group creates for themselves to survive really well, as it keeps us unaware of what is going on outside. (9/10)
Suggestion: Aftermath is worth watching, but I do feel like the casual fan might not enjoy this, it really will appeal to those who enjoy a solid drama about survival. (Try It)
Best Part: The bleakness that surrounds the story.
Worst Part: Aftermath can come off feeling a little bit slow.
Believability: Aftermath tackles a potential real problem the world could face. (7/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Overall: A Great Unwatched Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/24/aftermath-2012/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Birds (1963) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Strong Suspense by the Master of Suspense
THE BIRDS is often listed amongst the great works of Alfred Hitchcock and I could never really understand the attraction. I thought it was a so-so fright-flick, so when I tripped across it on TV the other day, I started watching it with one eye, figuring I'd flip to something else in a few minutes.
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
DRAGON QUEST VIII
Games
App
[Recommended Hardware] iPhone 5 or Higher/iPad (3rd Generation or Better) Please Note: iPhone 4 is...
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Beguiled in Books
Jun 5, 2019
“A classic slice of Southern Gothic, shot through with psychological suspense, which is the basis for Sofia Coppola’s (winner of Best Director at Cannes) 2017 film of the same name starring Nicola Kidman, Colin Farrell and Kirsten Dunst”. Source: wiki/The_Beguiled_(2017_film).
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated The Ninth Daughter (Abigail Adams #1) in Books
Mar 12, 2018
Substantial characters in a good historical fiction mystery
I didn’t expect to enjoy this book as much as I would! It was a great mystery with a hefty set of characters (historical and otherwise) with an underlying theme of political tension playing throughout the plot.
I think that’s what made the book enjoyable, was despite the mystery being the main hook, the political tension and bickering between the patriots and the British was always in the forefront and mentioned when need be as it was central to the story. Every so often you had mention of Abigail’s refusal to drink tea for example, or minor scuffles happening between citizens and the Redcoats.
Despite the tensions however, Abigail puts her ideas and beliefs aside and works alongside the British to solve this mystery. I enjoyed reading her character. She’s strong willed and has a good retort every so often when she needs to speak out, which shocks other characters as it wasn’t considered “proper”. I enjoy Abigail’s unorthodox behavior and it may seem as if she gives an air of an annoying stubborn woman, but it’s because of her personality that things get done no matter whose side you’re on or who you support.
John and Abigail’s relationship was also nice to read. They’re both equals and you can see a subtle quiet strength between them and they compliment each other perfectly. There’s a mutual respect between the two and if they were alive now, they would probably be a political supercouple ;)
The mystery aspect of the book was good and the intrigue is definitely noted. The setting is superbly done and very descriptive. The list of suspects was substantial and revelation of the culprit isn’t much of a surprise but the execution of obtaining the criminal and his background story was excellent to read , and was very satisfying to see the bad guys get their dues. The supporting characters are also well done - although I have to admit, there are just a little too many for me. Even minor characters have their personality and details and although it’s good and makes the world building more detailed and rich, sometimes it’s a bit hard to follow as to who’s who. (Perhaps a section of cast of characters would help in this case - especially when some characters share the same last name)
I’ll be picking up the next book to read. It’s definitely worth looking into for those that love historical fiction mysteries. The tea has been dumped!!! So you have to figure out what sort of chaos is going to happen and what mystery Abigail will solve next.
I think that’s what made the book enjoyable, was despite the mystery being the main hook, the political tension and bickering between the patriots and the British was always in the forefront and mentioned when need be as it was central to the story. Every so often you had mention of Abigail’s refusal to drink tea for example, or minor scuffles happening between citizens and the Redcoats.
Despite the tensions however, Abigail puts her ideas and beliefs aside and works alongside the British to solve this mystery. I enjoyed reading her character. She’s strong willed and has a good retort every so often when she needs to speak out, which shocks other characters as it wasn’t considered “proper”. I enjoy Abigail’s unorthodox behavior and it may seem as if she gives an air of an annoying stubborn woman, but it’s because of her personality that things get done no matter whose side you’re on or who you support.
John and Abigail’s relationship was also nice to read. They’re both equals and you can see a subtle quiet strength between them and they compliment each other perfectly. There’s a mutual respect between the two and if they were alive now, they would probably be a political supercouple ;)
The mystery aspect of the book was good and the intrigue is definitely noted. The setting is superbly done and very descriptive. The list of suspects was substantial and revelation of the culprit isn’t much of a surprise but the execution of obtaining the criminal and his background story was excellent to read , and was very satisfying to see the bad guys get their dues. The supporting characters are also well done - although I have to admit, there are just a little too many for me. Even minor characters have their personality and details and although it’s good and makes the world building more detailed and rich, sometimes it’s a bit hard to follow as to who’s who. (Perhaps a section of cast of characters would help in this case - especially when some characters share the same last name)
I’ll be picking up the next book to read. It’s definitely worth looking into for those that love historical fiction mysteries. The tea has been dumped!!! So you have to figure out what sort of chaos is going to happen and what mystery Abigail will solve next.
JT (287 KP) rated The Reef (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
“You’re gonna need a bigger boat!” those few words struck terror into the hearts of cinema goers who got a first glimpse of Steven Spielberg’s monster rising out of the water in Jaws. Others have attempted to recreate that fear.
Open Water saw two divers float around for ages before finally becoming lunch for a pack of hunting tiger sharks. Deep Blue Sea used CGI technology to create massive predators with a smart enough brain to devour the hapless crew of a scientific research station. And Shark Night 3D gave us blood curdling horror with half naked women thrown in for good measure. The Reef, encompasses most of the above minus the CGI. Here it’s replaced with clever and careful editing of one of the most beautiful but sinister creatures of the ocean….the Great White Shark.
A small group of friends, some with a past, get together on a yacht and hit the clear blue waters to deliver it to a waiting recipient. When it capsizes they are faced with the choice, swim for it to the nearest land miles away or wait it out on a potentially sinking vessel. Four members venture out leaving one behind, who after confessing he fishes the waters has no desire to get his feet wet, but excelling in scaring the shit out of his friends by telling them they all look like seals ready for the slaughter.
For any low budget indie film such as this creating tension when you have a location that looks exactly the same for miles in each direction is always going to be hard. But to his credit Andrew Traucki does extremely well in building up the entrance of our finned friend. Capturing the underwater viewpoint from Luke (the only one with a face mask) he dives down now and again to check the murky undertow for signs of life at the request of some very distressed friends. You’re always half expecting to see something but it never comes, until you finally catch a glimpse of the tail, and then your heart will race.
Of course this tension has to be sustained for the next forty-five minutes which is pretty hard. The acting is OK, made all the more effective by the fact that the cast is a bunch of relative unknowns. It’s hardly a surprise ending however, but given what Traucki has to work with he’s a produced good effort. There’s enough here to keep anyone happy, more so if you’re afraid of being left to die in miles of open water….oh, and you hate sharks!
Open Water saw two divers float around for ages before finally becoming lunch for a pack of hunting tiger sharks. Deep Blue Sea used CGI technology to create massive predators with a smart enough brain to devour the hapless crew of a scientific research station. And Shark Night 3D gave us blood curdling horror with half naked women thrown in for good measure. The Reef, encompasses most of the above minus the CGI. Here it’s replaced with clever and careful editing of one of the most beautiful but sinister creatures of the ocean….the Great White Shark.
A small group of friends, some with a past, get together on a yacht and hit the clear blue waters to deliver it to a waiting recipient. When it capsizes they are faced with the choice, swim for it to the nearest land miles away or wait it out on a potentially sinking vessel. Four members venture out leaving one behind, who after confessing he fishes the waters has no desire to get his feet wet, but excelling in scaring the shit out of his friends by telling them they all look like seals ready for the slaughter.
For any low budget indie film such as this creating tension when you have a location that looks exactly the same for miles in each direction is always going to be hard. But to his credit Andrew Traucki does extremely well in building up the entrance of our finned friend. Capturing the underwater viewpoint from Luke (the only one with a face mask) he dives down now and again to check the murky undertow for signs of life at the request of some very distressed friends. You’re always half expecting to see something but it never comes, until you finally catch a glimpse of the tail, and then your heart will race.
Of course this tension has to be sustained for the next forty-five minutes which is pretty hard. The acting is OK, made all the more effective by the fact that the cast is a bunch of relative unknowns. It’s hardly a surprise ending however, but given what Traucki has to work with he’s a produced good effort. There’s enough here to keep anyone happy, more so if you’re afraid of being left to die in miles of open water….oh, and you hate sharks!
EasterBunnyKiller (31 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Saw this before starting my shift the Saturday of opening weekend. I would have rated this higher if it hadn't hurt my fanboy feelings as much as it did, but I am of two minds about this movie.
Visually, it's stunning. The differences in the color palette between the teenage and adult version of the Losers Club and the tunnels beneath the house on Neibolt street was great, just like in the first movie. Andy Muschietti did a great job capturing the frenetic dread during the final conflict with Pennywise. The acting is great. And I'm very pleased at how effective the movie is with horror in the light, instead of relying o the dark for tension.
The dialogue is fun and Bill Hader knocked it out of the park. I enjoyed the departure from the source material in regard to the specifics of the final confrontation, which changed the specifics, but managed the retain the theme and feeling of the book's conclusion.
Now the bad:
At times, It: Chapter Two felt like a high concept comedy starring Bill Hader. Now I understand and appreciate the character of Ritchie and his wisecracking timbre, but at times, it felt a bit much and took me out of the tension of the story.
I wasn't a huge fan of some of the characterisations of the adult versions of the characters. Specifically, Eddie and Mike. For Mike, one would have thought that given the he is the entire reason the the Losers reunite, he would have had some kind of plan better than "get everyone together and hope that's enough." The way he tries to convince them all to stick around and fight It seems contrived, considering that the film very much moves away from the idea of Bill being the leader of the group.
As far as Eddie, I felt like it was a missed opportunity with regard to him facing his fears. In the novel, adult Eddie is still very much ruled by his own fears. It didn't feel like a very big moment for him to overcome his fear in the movie, because there is very little prove-up for his fearfulness as an adult.
There were certain things I wasn't very much of a fan of, like the abbreviated inclusion of Henry Bowers, and the decided lack of a cosmic Turtle, but all in all, it was an enjoyable movie, with a couple of legitimately creepy scenes on it.
Visually, it's stunning. The differences in the color palette between the teenage and adult version of the Losers Club and the tunnels beneath the house on Neibolt street was great, just like in the first movie. Andy Muschietti did a great job capturing the frenetic dread during the final conflict with Pennywise. The acting is great. And I'm very pleased at how effective the movie is with horror in the light, instead of relying o the dark for tension.
The dialogue is fun and Bill Hader knocked it out of the park. I enjoyed the departure from the source material in regard to the specifics of the final confrontation, which changed the specifics, but managed the retain the theme and feeling of the book's conclusion.
Now the bad:
At times, It: Chapter Two felt like a high concept comedy starring Bill Hader. Now I understand and appreciate the character of Ritchie and his wisecracking timbre, but at times, it felt a bit much and took me out of the tension of the story.
I wasn't a huge fan of some of the characterisations of the adult versions of the characters. Specifically, Eddie and Mike. For Mike, one would have thought that given the he is the entire reason the the Losers reunite, he would have had some kind of plan better than "get everyone together and hope that's enough." The way he tries to convince them all to stick around and fight It seems contrived, considering that the film very much moves away from the idea of Bill being the leader of the group.
As far as Eddie, I felt like it was a missed opportunity with regard to him facing his fears. In the novel, adult Eddie is still very much ruled by his own fears. It didn't feel like a very big moment for him to overcome his fear in the movie, because there is very little prove-up for his fearfulness as an adult.
There were certain things I wasn't very much of a fan of, like the abbreviated inclusion of Henry Bowers, and the decided lack of a cosmic Turtle, but all in all, it was an enjoyable movie, with a couple of legitimately creepy scenes on it.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Nov 8, 2017
Dull and boring
I've never read the book or seen any previous adaptations, or indeed any other Poirot stories or any Agatha Christie novels at all. And all I can say is that I hope this film isn't a reflection on the rest of her work.
The film starts well, with a fun introduction to Poirot and Kenneth Branagh is probably the best thing about the film in general. He does a fantastic job as Poirot for the most part, very believable as a Belgian.
However before the murder even takes place, the film starts to dip and gets a little dull. The murder itself is presented in such an uninteresting way and the cinematography at times is a little bizarre. Some of the camera shots don't work and some seem ridiculously cheesy how they're staged. The questioning of the suspects does little to bring any tension or intrigue, and the star studded cast isn't given much to work with although some try their best to ham it up (Michelle Pfeiffer).
And then the finale/resolution itself is just completely bonkers. It might have been unexpected, but not in a good way. It was just very silly and not at all what I was hoping for from this film. Such a disappointment.
The film starts well, with a fun introduction to Poirot and Kenneth Branagh is probably the best thing about the film in general. He does a fantastic job as Poirot for the most part, very believable as a Belgian.
However before the murder even takes place, the film starts to dip and gets a little dull. The murder itself is presented in such an uninteresting way and the cinematography at times is a little bizarre. Some of the camera shots don't work and some seem ridiculously cheesy how they're staged. The questioning of the suspects does little to bring any tension or intrigue, and the star studded cast isn't given much to work with although some try their best to ham it up (Michelle Pfeiffer).
And then the finale/resolution itself is just completely bonkers. It might have been unexpected, but not in a good way. It was just very silly and not at all what I was hoping for from this film. Such a disappointment.
