Search
Search results
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated The Bourbon Kings (The Bourbon Kings, #1) in Books
Jan 29, 2024
18 of 220
Book
Reread
The Bourbon Kings (Book1)
By J.R. ward
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
For generations, the Bradford family has worn the mantle of kings of the bourbon capital of the world. Their sustained wealth has afforded them prestige and privilege - as well as a hard-won division of class on their sprawling estate, Easterly. Upstairs, a dynasty that by all appearances plays by the rules of good fortune and good taste. Downstairs, the staff who work tirelessly to maintain the impeccable Bradford facade. And never the twain shall meet.
For Lizzie King, Easterly's head gardener, crossing that divide nearly ruined her life. Falling in love with Tulane, the prodigal son of the bourbon dynasty, was nothing that she intended or wanted - and their bitter breakup only served to prove her instincts were right. Now, after two years of staying away, Tulane is finally coming home again, and he is bringing the past with him. No one will be left unmarked: not Tulane's beautiful and ruthless wife; not his older brother, whose bitterness and bad blood know no bounds; and especially not the iron-fisted Bradford patriarch, a man with few morals, fewer scruples, and many, many terrible secrets. As family tensions - professional and intimately private - ignite, Easterly and all its inhabitants are thrown into the grips of an irrevocable transformation, and only the cunning will survive.
This is a reread for me and one of my favourites! This gives me Dallas crossed with Jilly Coopers Riders vibes. So much drama and the characters are so much fun!
Book
Reread
The Bourbon Kings (Book1)
By J.R. ward
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
For generations, the Bradford family has worn the mantle of kings of the bourbon capital of the world. Their sustained wealth has afforded them prestige and privilege - as well as a hard-won division of class on their sprawling estate, Easterly. Upstairs, a dynasty that by all appearances plays by the rules of good fortune and good taste. Downstairs, the staff who work tirelessly to maintain the impeccable Bradford facade. And never the twain shall meet.
For Lizzie King, Easterly's head gardener, crossing that divide nearly ruined her life. Falling in love with Tulane, the prodigal son of the bourbon dynasty, was nothing that she intended or wanted - and their bitter breakup only served to prove her instincts were right. Now, after two years of staying away, Tulane is finally coming home again, and he is bringing the past with him. No one will be left unmarked: not Tulane's beautiful and ruthless wife; not his older brother, whose bitterness and bad blood know no bounds; and especially not the iron-fisted Bradford patriarch, a man with few morals, fewer scruples, and many, many terrible secrets. As family tensions - professional and intimately private - ignite, Easterly and all its inhabitants are thrown into the grips of an irrevocable transformation, and only the cunning will survive.
This is a reread for me and one of my favourites! This gives me Dallas crossed with Jilly Coopers Riders vibes. So much drama and the characters are so much fun!
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Storyteller in Books
May 30, 2017
An Ethical Question
Jodi Picoult is the bestselling author of numerous novels, with My Sister’s Keeper being the most well known, perhaps. All of her stories are well written although it is still possible to notice improvements in the writing over the years right up until now with her latest, The Storyteller, which quite possibly could be her best yet.
Arguably, The Storyteller does not quite read as a Jodi Picoult novel is known to. This is, in part, because of the nature of the story. Most of her previous books deal with medical ethics and/or court cases, whereas this story contains neither. The Storyteller contains a combination of past and present - the main focus being on the Holocaust.
Four people narrate the novel: two in the present day and two giving an account of their experience during the Second World War. It begins with Sage Singer, a 25 year old, hermit-like woman with a disfiguring facial scar – the result of a terrible accident, one that also led to the death of her mother. For the past three years Sage has been participating in a grief group – a place where people who have lost loved ones can come together and talk about their feelings. After three years surely Sage would no longer need the help of the group? However she still attends, not because she finds it helpful, but for the opposite reason. She even says herself: “If it were helpful I wouldn’t still be coming.” It unfolds that she still blames herself for her mother’s death despite the reassurances that it was an accident and not her fault.
It is through the grief group that Sage meets an elderly man, Josef Weber. After becoming friendly and discovering that Sage comes from a Jewish family, Josef confesses to something terrible – he was a Nazi during the war. He killed people. He wants Sage to represent all the Jews he killed and forgive him. Then he wants her to help him die.
Whilst, Josef recounts his experience of being part of the Nazi party, another account is also given. Minka, Sage’s grandmother, describes the terrors she faced as an imprisoned Jew suffering fates such as the deaths of all her family and friends and her time in Auschwitz. Another element to the novel is the vampire story Minka wrote as a teenager. This is interspersed between the other chapters of the book. Unwittingly, Minka’s fictional tale reflects the alienation and destruction of the Jews. The final character is Leo who, like Sage, is narrating the present day, and trying to locate ex-Nazi members in order for them to be punished by the government.
One thing to praise Picoult for, not just in The Storyteller, but also in all her novels is the amount of in-depth research she undertakes to make her stories as accurate as possible even though they are fictional. Minka’s account was written is such a way that it was almost believable that Picoult had been there and experienced it herself. She even learnt to bake bread so that she could write from the point of view of a baker. This is pure dedication!
The Storyteller is an amazing, beautiful book, which is not purely an enjoyable read. It informs, shocks and stays with you for a long time. You will question your own morals and ability to forgive. Is anyone entirely evil? Is anyone entirely good? Perhaps we are both, so why should anyone have the right to treat others as inferior from themselves?
Arguably, The Storyteller does not quite read as a Jodi Picoult novel is known to. This is, in part, because of the nature of the story. Most of her previous books deal with medical ethics and/or court cases, whereas this story contains neither. The Storyteller contains a combination of past and present - the main focus being on the Holocaust.
Four people narrate the novel: two in the present day and two giving an account of their experience during the Second World War. It begins with Sage Singer, a 25 year old, hermit-like woman with a disfiguring facial scar – the result of a terrible accident, one that also led to the death of her mother. For the past three years Sage has been participating in a grief group – a place where people who have lost loved ones can come together and talk about their feelings. After three years surely Sage would no longer need the help of the group? However she still attends, not because she finds it helpful, but for the opposite reason. She even says herself: “If it were helpful I wouldn’t still be coming.” It unfolds that she still blames herself for her mother’s death despite the reassurances that it was an accident and not her fault.
It is through the grief group that Sage meets an elderly man, Josef Weber. After becoming friendly and discovering that Sage comes from a Jewish family, Josef confesses to something terrible – he was a Nazi during the war. He killed people. He wants Sage to represent all the Jews he killed and forgive him. Then he wants her to help him die.
Whilst, Josef recounts his experience of being part of the Nazi party, another account is also given. Minka, Sage’s grandmother, describes the terrors she faced as an imprisoned Jew suffering fates such as the deaths of all her family and friends and her time in Auschwitz. Another element to the novel is the vampire story Minka wrote as a teenager. This is interspersed between the other chapters of the book. Unwittingly, Minka’s fictional tale reflects the alienation and destruction of the Jews. The final character is Leo who, like Sage, is narrating the present day, and trying to locate ex-Nazi members in order for them to be punished by the government.
One thing to praise Picoult for, not just in The Storyteller, but also in all her novels is the amount of in-depth research she undertakes to make her stories as accurate as possible even though they are fictional. Minka’s account was written is such a way that it was almost believable that Picoult had been there and experienced it herself. She even learnt to bake bread so that she could write from the point of view of a baker. This is pure dedication!
The Storyteller is an amazing, beautiful book, which is not purely an enjoyable read. It informs, shocks and stays with you for a long time. You will question your own morals and ability to forgive. Is anyone entirely evil? Is anyone entirely good? Perhaps we are both, so why should anyone have the right to treat others as inferior from themselves?
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Beasts Made of Night in Books
Apr 19, 2018
Terrible characters (3 more)
Lack of explanation of terms
Stupid cliffhanger
Confusing geography
So this Nigerian-influenced fantasy made enough of a splash when it was released in October that I JUST got it in my hands from the library. That long wait....was not actually justified, sadly. The cover is GORGEOUS and the concept is really, really cool - the execution is lacking. I can tell that the author had the world pretty fleshed out in his mind, from the geography to the vocabulary - but he didn't actually pass that knowledge on to the reader. Kos is a walled city, but I'm not sure whether the Palace is within the walls or not? In one scene our protagonist LEAPS out of the castle and runs back the city - but in another scene he mentions that looking out the castle wall, Kos fits behind his fingernail. Kos is made up of several neighborhood plus a market - it's not small. So either his fingernail is HUGE or Kos is a pretty decent distance away. But it's written as if it only takes him about ten minutes to run there? Not to mention that he cracked a rib in the room that he leaped from (which is never mentioned again).
Oh and he winds up landing in an ivy maze out of nowhere - he couldn't see it from the palace? Let's see....the King regularly bombards neighborhoods with catapults in what's called a "baptism" but the people haven't revolted against this, for some reason. They talk about something called a "kanselo" but never define it. I -think- it's like an organized group or coalition, but I'm really not entirely sure.
The male protagonist treats every woman his age as a potential love interest, debating whether to give them his heart-stone, or whether people will think he's already given one girl or another his heart-stone - but never stops to ask if the girls are interested in HIM that way. Because of COURSE they would be, right? He's the Sky-Fist! The Lightbringer! The one whose tattoos never fade! (Eating sin-beasts causes a black tattoo to appear on your skin - on most sin-eaters these fade eventually.) Also he's just DUMB. He recalls that the sin-eater who ate his mother's sin had a certain tattoo, and when he runs across her years later, it takes him three or four encounters before realizing it's the same sin-eater. (The tattoo is a spider. Covering her FACE. It hasn't faded.) He makes stupid decisions - after nightmares of one love-interest being attacked by sin-beasts, he LEAVES HER SURROUNDED BY THEM to go run out into the city. He has at least FIVE love interests in this book. And only ONE of them seems interested in him in return.
I really wanted to like this book. The concept of sin-eating is great. But the main character and all the one-dimensional characters that surrounded him, along with the confusing geography, just turned me off. And I'm not even getting into the "ending." Yeah. Definitely throwing quotes on that because that was not an ending. The book just stops.
Skip this. It was a terrible book wrapped in a deceptively pretty package.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Oh and he winds up landing in an ivy maze out of nowhere - he couldn't see it from the palace? Let's see....the King regularly bombards neighborhoods with catapults in what's called a "baptism" but the people haven't revolted against this, for some reason. They talk about something called a "kanselo" but never define it. I -think- it's like an organized group or coalition, but I'm really not entirely sure.
The male protagonist treats every woman his age as a potential love interest, debating whether to give them his heart-stone, or whether people will think he's already given one girl or another his heart-stone - but never stops to ask if the girls are interested in HIM that way. Because of COURSE they would be, right? He's the Sky-Fist! The Lightbringer! The one whose tattoos never fade! (Eating sin-beasts causes a black tattoo to appear on your skin - on most sin-eaters these fade eventually.) Also he's just DUMB. He recalls that the sin-eater who ate his mother's sin had a certain tattoo, and when he runs across her years later, it takes him three or four encounters before realizing it's the same sin-eater. (The tattoo is a spider. Covering her FACE. It hasn't faded.) He makes stupid decisions - after nightmares of one love-interest being attacked by sin-beasts, he LEAVES HER SURROUNDED BY THEM to go run out into the city. He has at least FIVE love interests in this book. And only ONE of them seems interested in him in return.
I really wanted to like this book. The concept of sin-eating is great. But the main character and all the one-dimensional characters that surrounded him, along with the confusing geography, just turned me off. And I'm not even getting into the "ending." Yeah. Definitely throwing quotes on that because that was not an ending. The book just stops.
Skip this. It was a terrible book wrapped in a deceptively pretty package.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Every Last Lie in Books
Jan 23, 2018
Irritating characters (1 more)
Letdown of an ending
A bit of a letdown
Clara Solberg's new son, Felix, is just days old when her husband, Nick, and four-year-old daughter, Maisie are in a terrible car crash. They are heading home from Maisie's ballet class when Nick takes a curve too fast and the car slams into a tree--Maisie is amazingly uninjured, but Nick is killed. Devastated, Clara finds herself unable to sleep or eat and soon, Maisie begins having nightmares, telling her mother a bad man is after her and showing fear about a particular kind of car. Clara begins to wonder if her husband's death was really an accident. As she investigates, she also starts to ponder if she knew Nick at all.
Kubica's latest is told in alternating perspectives: Clara, as she deals with the aftermath of her husband's untimely death, and Nick, in the months leading up to the car crash. It should be an effective format, causing things to unfurl slowly and build tension and suspense. Unfortunately, in this case, it also creates a layer of stress. Maybe I just caught this book at a bad time--I was busy with work and could only pick it up in bits and pieces for a while--but the first 2/3 or so just stressed me out. I found myself almost dreading picking it back up and finding out what Clara was up to. While we should have sympathy for Clara, as her husband is dead and she's left alone with two small children, I often found her annoying and, honestly, a borderline terrible parent.
As such, her parenting decisions and overall bad judgment left me unable to enjoy or even fathom huge portions of the novel. Maybe she's clouded by grief and fatigue, but I'm not sure I'd immediately go from my child having one nightmare to thinking my husband had been killed. Nor would I leave my children in the (hot) car alone everywhere I went, chasing down leads on this supposed murder. Good grief. Her unhinged behavior was hard to stomach after awhile.
Nick's portions were almost easier to read, even if he too is an unsympathetic character: a man who just needed to not lie constantly to his wife. (Why, why must characters just lie incessantly in some of these novels?)
The one redeeming facet for this novel was the last third--and again, I have to say that maybe I just found the book at a bad time, because when I finally found a little time to read it uninterrupted (e.g., stay up too late the night before my children started school--a decision I'm still regretting), it did pick up. I read the last third in one setting, because the dramatic tension was finally affecting me, and I needed to know what happened.
Still, even in the end, I felt let down by it all. Why did I read this? What was the point? I have read two other of Kubica's novels and enjoyed them, particularly Pretty Baby, but this one just didn't do it for me.
Overall: stressful, lacked the appropriate tension for most of the novel, belabored by annoying/irritating characters, and a letdown of an ending. Before writing this review, I was thinking 3 stars, but as I'm writing, I realized this was a 2.5 star read for me. Hopefully you will enjoy it more than me. I will definitely read whatever Kubica writes (and I still have The Good Girl waiting on my Kindle app), but I'm disappointed by this one.
More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
Kubica's latest is told in alternating perspectives: Clara, as she deals with the aftermath of her husband's untimely death, and Nick, in the months leading up to the car crash. It should be an effective format, causing things to unfurl slowly and build tension and suspense. Unfortunately, in this case, it also creates a layer of stress. Maybe I just caught this book at a bad time--I was busy with work and could only pick it up in bits and pieces for a while--but the first 2/3 or so just stressed me out. I found myself almost dreading picking it back up and finding out what Clara was up to. While we should have sympathy for Clara, as her husband is dead and she's left alone with two small children, I often found her annoying and, honestly, a borderline terrible parent.
As such, her parenting decisions and overall bad judgment left me unable to enjoy or even fathom huge portions of the novel. Maybe she's clouded by grief and fatigue, but I'm not sure I'd immediately go from my child having one nightmare to thinking my husband had been killed. Nor would I leave my children in the (hot) car alone everywhere I went, chasing down leads on this supposed murder. Good grief. Her unhinged behavior was hard to stomach after awhile.
Nick's portions were almost easier to read, even if he too is an unsympathetic character: a man who just needed to not lie constantly to his wife. (Why, why must characters just lie incessantly in some of these novels?)
The one redeeming facet for this novel was the last third--and again, I have to say that maybe I just found the book at a bad time, because when I finally found a little time to read it uninterrupted (e.g., stay up too late the night before my children started school--a decision I'm still regretting), it did pick up. I read the last third in one setting, because the dramatic tension was finally affecting me, and I needed to know what happened.
Still, even in the end, I felt let down by it all. Why did I read this? What was the point? I have read two other of Kubica's novels and enjoyed them, particularly Pretty Baby, but this one just didn't do it for me.
Overall: stressful, lacked the appropriate tension for most of the novel, belabored by annoying/irritating characters, and a letdown of an ending. Before writing this review, I was thinking 3 stars, but as I'm writing, I realized this was a 2.5 star read for me. Hopefully you will enjoy it more than me. I will definitely read whatever Kubica writes (and I still have The Good Girl waiting on my Kindle app), but I'm disappointed by this one.
More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Slender Man (2018) in Movies
Jul 5, 2019
Director: Sylvain White
Writer: David Birke, Victor Surge (Screenplay)
Starring: Joey King, Julia Goldani Telles, Jaz Sinclair, Annalise Basso, Alex Fitzalan, Taylor Richardson, Javier Botet
Plot: In a small town in Massachusetts, a group of friends, fascinated by the internet lore of the Slender Man, attempt to prove that he doesn't actually exist - until one of them mysteriously goes missing.
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: The Worst Horror Film of 2018
Story: Slender Man starts with four high school friends Wren (King), Hallie (Telles), Chloe (Sinclair) and Katie (Basso) decide to learn about Slender Man on the internet, they watch a video to summon him and the next morning the girls have had nightmares, before Katie vanishes.
The three remaining girls start searching for answers after the police come up with nothing and soon find themselves the latest target for the Slender Man.
Thoughts on Slender Man
Characters – Usually I would start to describe the characters here, but this film could well be the worst character development film I have ever seen, we have Wren and Hallie who are the longest surviving members of the group, who mostly just scream and think they are better than everyone else. Chloe is here too, she doesn’t listen to instructions and Katie is the one that goes missing. This is how little we learn about the characters in this film.
Performances – With terrible characters, comes no chance for the poor actresses in the main roles of the film to get anything memorable in, it is hard to give any of them any praise for their performance, mostly because it was hard to tell Joey King and Julia Goldani Telles apart too.
Story – The story follows four girls that play along with a Slender Man mystery that leaves them being terrorised by the mythical monster. The problem with this story is that we are force to follow four boring high characters that are given nothing to make them standout in a crowd, we have a internet video starting the nightmare which doesn’t create any sort of rules behind the mysterious figure. We have one person literally vanish, another one getting chased which just makes it hard to believe just what is happening with the characters will be going through. It is the most lacklustre pointless story we have seen that almost feels like everything is complete list of what not to do when making a movie.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film could be high tension moment, only for it to come back flat on its face not building the tension just, this is a scary moment, over. We even have a mystery which should be interesting but soon turns into nothing important.
Settings – The film is set in a city, didn’t notice which one, but it is surround by woodlands which only get to add what could be the mystery about the Slender Man who could use this area for hiding places.
Special Effects – The effects are just complete the weak attempt to make a movie here, with the Slender Man never getting anything remotely looking scary which he should be if he is literally kidnapping children.
Scene of the Movie – Ummmmmmm, the credits were good.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The kids have nothing that makes them look different.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the weakest horror films you will ever see, it is just a terrible mess, with no scares and doesn’t give the talent a chance to shine in.
Overall: Bad is being nice.
Rating
Writer: David Birke, Victor Surge (Screenplay)
Starring: Joey King, Julia Goldani Telles, Jaz Sinclair, Annalise Basso, Alex Fitzalan, Taylor Richardson, Javier Botet
Plot: In a small town in Massachusetts, a group of friends, fascinated by the internet lore of the Slender Man, attempt to prove that he doesn't actually exist - until one of them mysteriously goes missing.
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: The Worst Horror Film of 2018
Story: Slender Man starts with four high school friends Wren (King), Hallie (Telles), Chloe (Sinclair) and Katie (Basso) decide to learn about Slender Man on the internet, they watch a video to summon him and the next morning the girls have had nightmares, before Katie vanishes.
The three remaining girls start searching for answers after the police come up with nothing and soon find themselves the latest target for the Slender Man.
Thoughts on Slender Man
Characters – Usually I would start to describe the characters here, but this film could well be the worst character development film I have ever seen, we have Wren and Hallie who are the longest surviving members of the group, who mostly just scream and think they are better than everyone else. Chloe is here too, she doesn’t listen to instructions and Katie is the one that goes missing. This is how little we learn about the characters in this film.
Performances – With terrible characters, comes no chance for the poor actresses in the main roles of the film to get anything memorable in, it is hard to give any of them any praise for their performance, mostly because it was hard to tell Joey King and Julia Goldani Telles apart too.
Story – The story follows four girls that play along with a Slender Man mystery that leaves them being terrorised by the mythical monster. The problem with this story is that we are force to follow four boring high characters that are given nothing to make them standout in a crowd, we have a internet video starting the nightmare which doesn’t create any sort of rules behind the mysterious figure. We have one person literally vanish, another one getting chased which just makes it hard to believe just what is happening with the characters will be going through. It is the most lacklustre pointless story we have seen that almost feels like everything is complete list of what not to do when making a movie.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film could be high tension moment, only for it to come back flat on its face not building the tension just, this is a scary moment, over. We even have a mystery which should be interesting but soon turns into nothing important.
Settings – The film is set in a city, didn’t notice which one, but it is surround by woodlands which only get to add what could be the mystery about the Slender Man who could use this area for hiding places.
Special Effects – The effects are just complete the weak attempt to make a movie here, with the Slender Man never getting anything remotely looking scary which he should be if he is literally kidnapping children.
Scene of the Movie – Ummmmmmm, the credits were good.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The kids have nothing that makes them look different.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the weakest horror films you will ever see, it is just a terrible mess, with no scares and doesn’t give the talent a chance to shine in.
Overall: Bad is being nice.
Rating
Zachary Wilson (3 KP) rated Super Mario Party in Video Games
Jul 29, 2019
A return to familiar territory (2 more)
Clever use of strategic elements
Variety of modes
Requires a single Joy-Con (2 more)
Boards are small and uninteresting
Only 4 boards in the main party mode
Super Mario Party returns to its classic roots, you know, before Mario Party 9. Though at the same time however it's not a 100% reunion. Sure you can move around freely again which is nice; but this party still wants to spice things up. See, they loved what they created on the 3DS, specifically Star Rush because elements of Star Rush make it's way to this classic party. For instance, every character has a unique die, and you can have up to 3 partners as you play. All taken from Star Rush. Heck, there's a team mode that plays very similarly to the main mode of Star Rush. The main mode in Super then is a disappointment. For starters, 4 boards is terrible and actually, this game now officially has the LEAST amount of boards out of any Mario Party game and that's terrible (I do not count Mario Party Advance or The Top 100 because both are completely different). It doesn't help that the boards aren't as fun as the old games. For one, they're all big squares and that's because they use the same 4 boards in the team mode, which turns the 4 boards into a grid design. These 4 boards are uninteresting to play on in my opinion compared to the very creative boards of the GameCube era Mario Parties. Yes, all the elements of a classic Mario Party are here. Collect coins, buy the star, don't get screwed. Even this has changes for the worse. Everything is cheaper so stars now only cost 10 coins. It's so easy to get coins, you might as well make stars free because I'd be very impressed if you couldn't afford a star. Coins basically become meaningless as you can constantly buy whatever item you want and the star at all times unless you have the absolute worst luck. This means you can go to the same corner of the board that sells the golden warp pipe, and use the pipe to get free stars. Items are not randomized in shops so if you know which item shop sells the pipe, then you can always just visit that shop over and over and not even bother actually trying to chase after the star. There is one board that's an exception to all've my complaints, and it's the best board because of it. Overall the main mode is just meh to me. Because this review is getting stupidly long, I'll rush the rest. The other modes are fine. Team mode's great if you liked Star Rush. Rythm Heaven moddme was fun. Water survival would've been better without the minigames. Basically everything else is perfectly fine and save this game from getting any lower. Look, I don't hate this game. I just think it's an ok game and isn't necessarily the return I was hoping for. If you're a fan of Mario Party then sure, get this game. I wouldn't trust my review. I think Mario Party 9 is amazing and I have no idea why anyone loves Mario Party 4 because I think it's one of the worst. Do you really trust my criticism of this one?
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated All About Steve (2009) in Movies
Jun 15, 2020
A Movie About a Crossword Puzzle Designer? Ummm...
With a mindblowing 6% Rating on Rotten Tomatoes (mindblowing because it’s too high), All About Steve is the story of a crossword puzzle designer who travels across the country with the hopes of convincing a CNN newsreporter that they belong together. I can feel your excitement. It’s palpable.
Acting: 3
Have you ever seen a mouse try and get off of a glue trap? That’s the equivalent of the acting work in this movie. Let’s start with the woman of the hour, Sandra Bullock playing the leading role of Mary Horowitz. I couldn’t help but think as she runs through her lines, “Do you even want to be on set right now?” She reads the lines of her character like a robocaller at times. I can actually say that for quite a few of the actors that bought into this dud.
Beginning: 6
I’ve seen worse starts to movies, I’ll be honest. The career fair scene is actually pretty hilarious which is probably about the only nice thing I have to say about this movie. If the entire movie had been like this, the overall score would have been double. Unfortunately the movie still would have been shit.
Characters: 5
I’ve always said, if you hate the main character of a movie, there’s a good chance you’re going to hate the movie. That theory definitely holds true here as Mary pains me with every single scene I watch her in. And the way they paint Bradley Cooper’s character Steve out to be such a jerk is just wrong. I mean this a reverse Pepe Le Peu situation we got going on here but he is the one we’re supposed to be mad at? Nightmare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 1
Yeah, there’s nothing I care about that’s happening throughout the duration of this movie. I could care less about Mary’s quest to win Steve because it’s just wrong. She’s a psycopath! When I say, “Nothing to see here!” I mean it.
Entertainment Value: 2
Ok, so here’s why I gave it a 2 despite how dreadful the entire movie was: I kept waiting to see how much worse things would get. The further I went down the rabbit hole, things just got more and more painful. Ever watch elementary school kids play basketball? Pretty much the same kind of train wreck here.
Memorability: 0
Pace: 0
Considering this is one of the worst movies imaginable, it’s no secret that “snail’s pace” doesn’t do it justice. Getting through All About Steve almost requires much drinking. Sure, you can survive it sober. Not advisable.
Plot: 1
It’s a story that makes no sense revolving around characters that don’t have a single solid motivation to their name. Even when you think for a moment that things might redeem themselves, the movie manages to set itself on fire again. Lost count of the number of times I asked myself, “Where the hell is this going?”
Resolution: 3
Overall: 26
Maybe it was because I was tired. Maybe it’s because I think Sandra Bullock is beautiful and who the hell would be stupid enough to run from that? Maybe it was because I had just watched A Quiet Place right before and was blown away by how incredible it was. Or maybe…All About Steve is just a terrible terrible movie. Yeah, I think I’ll go with the latter.
Acting: 3
Have you ever seen a mouse try and get off of a glue trap? That’s the equivalent of the acting work in this movie. Let’s start with the woman of the hour, Sandra Bullock playing the leading role of Mary Horowitz. I couldn’t help but think as she runs through her lines, “Do you even want to be on set right now?” She reads the lines of her character like a robocaller at times. I can actually say that for quite a few of the actors that bought into this dud.
Beginning: 6
I’ve seen worse starts to movies, I’ll be honest. The career fair scene is actually pretty hilarious which is probably about the only nice thing I have to say about this movie. If the entire movie had been like this, the overall score would have been double. Unfortunately the movie still would have been shit.
Characters: 5
I’ve always said, if you hate the main character of a movie, there’s a good chance you’re going to hate the movie. That theory definitely holds true here as Mary pains me with every single scene I watch her in. And the way they paint Bradley Cooper’s character Steve out to be such a jerk is just wrong. I mean this a reverse Pepe Le Peu situation we got going on here but he is the one we’re supposed to be mad at? Nightmare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 1
Yeah, there’s nothing I care about that’s happening throughout the duration of this movie. I could care less about Mary’s quest to win Steve because it’s just wrong. She’s a psycopath! When I say, “Nothing to see here!” I mean it.
Entertainment Value: 2
Ok, so here’s why I gave it a 2 despite how dreadful the entire movie was: I kept waiting to see how much worse things would get. The further I went down the rabbit hole, things just got more and more painful. Ever watch elementary school kids play basketball? Pretty much the same kind of train wreck here.
Memorability: 0
Pace: 0
Considering this is one of the worst movies imaginable, it’s no secret that “snail’s pace” doesn’t do it justice. Getting through All About Steve almost requires much drinking. Sure, you can survive it sober. Not advisable.
Plot: 1
It’s a story that makes no sense revolving around characters that don’t have a single solid motivation to their name. Even when you think for a moment that things might redeem themselves, the movie manages to set itself on fire again. Lost count of the number of times I asked myself, “Where the hell is this going?”
Resolution: 3
Overall: 26
Maybe it was because I was tired. Maybe it’s because I think Sandra Bullock is beautiful and who the hell would be stupid enough to run from that? Maybe it was because I had just watched A Quiet Place right before and was blown away by how incredible it was. Or maybe…All About Steve is just a terrible terrible movie. Yeah, I think I’ll go with the latter.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dark Tide (2012) in Movies
Aug 5, 2020
I always wonder what makes me not watch shark films, Dark Tide has Halle Berry, I like Halle Berry... so why have I never seen it?
Kate Mathieson has sworn off sharks ever since a dive went wrong and cost the life of one of her closest friends. Sharks were her life, and only doing tame tourist trips out on her boat means she's about to lose her business. Out of the blue, Kate's ex arrives with a man who's looking for more thrill than any regular dive can offer and he's convinced him that Kate is the only one who can do it. He's willing to pay big, but is the money worth reliving that memory?
Firstly, it was good to see a film with actual shark footage. I watch so many with terrible CGI that I sometimes forget that sharks aren't horribly pixelated and snarly. That is probably where the good comments end.
For a film with action in it I knew something was off almost instantly, there was no real hook into the film. It started out extremely calm and even the initial burst of energy didn't do anything to help and then almost as quickly we switch to present day and it's all calm again. Some might say that the up and down nature of the film reflects how quickly things can change at sea, I personally feel like saying they made a bad judgement call by giving it the pace of a terrible romance film.
Not helping the situation were the characters. Halle Berry always seems to have slightly brusk roles and although Kate doesn't start that way she certainly veers off when her ex shows up and the change in character is so sharp that it loses anything believable. Both Jeff (the ex) and Brady (the businessman) are unlikeable, one devious and the other arrogant, had they ditched some of the storyline between Kate and Jeff there might have been less tension and we'd have had something a little easier to watch. The few additional characters beyond these three were definitely light enough to lift parts of the film but they weren't in nearly enough to have a major effect.
The film was long, painfully long. It's not often I realise so early on that I'm struggling with a film, but for the entire length it felt like a slog. For some reason IMDb is listing 1 hour 34 (that would have been much better) but I checked the copy I watched and it says 1 hour 54. Perhaps 1,34 is how long we all wish it was. There was easily 20 minutes to shed from the runtime, but I don't know if it would have helped much without changes elsewhere too.
One last major change I would have like to have seen was to the whole ending. When things come to their climax it is almost impossible to tell what's going on, it doesn't make it anymore thrilling or intriguing, it's merely frustrating. A successful thriller can show me an almost pitch black scene and I'll be edging forward, eyes wide, waiting for whatever is going to make me jump out of my seat, but Dark Tide successfully bypasses that feeling in favour of leaving the viewer squinting at blackness.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/dark-tide-movie-review.html
Kate Mathieson has sworn off sharks ever since a dive went wrong and cost the life of one of her closest friends. Sharks were her life, and only doing tame tourist trips out on her boat means she's about to lose her business. Out of the blue, Kate's ex arrives with a man who's looking for more thrill than any regular dive can offer and he's convinced him that Kate is the only one who can do it. He's willing to pay big, but is the money worth reliving that memory?
Firstly, it was good to see a film with actual shark footage. I watch so many with terrible CGI that I sometimes forget that sharks aren't horribly pixelated and snarly. That is probably where the good comments end.
For a film with action in it I knew something was off almost instantly, there was no real hook into the film. It started out extremely calm and even the initial burst of energy didn't do anything to help and then almost as quickly we switch to present day and it's all calm again. Some might say that the up and down nature of the film reflects how quickly things can change at sea, I personally feel like saying they made a bad judgement call by giving it the pace of a terrible romance film.
Not helping the situation were the characters. Halle Berry always seems to have slightly brusk roles and although Kate doesn't start that way she certainly veers off when her ex shows up and the change in character is so sharp that it loses anything believable. Both Jeff (the ex) and Brady (the businessman) are unlikeable, one devious and the other arrogant, had they ditched some of the storyline between Kate and Jeff there might have been less tension and we'd have had something a little easier to watch. The few additional characters beyond these three were definitely light enough to lift parts of the film but they weren't in nearly enough to have a major effect.
The film was long, painfully long. It's not often I realise so early on that I'm struggling with a film, but for the entire length it felt like a slog. For some reason IMDb is listing 1 hour 34 (that would have been much better) but I checked the copy I watched and it says 1 hour 54. Perhaps 1,34 is how long we all wish it was. There was easily 20 minutes to shed from the runtime, but I don't know if it would have helped much without changes elsewhere too.
One last major change I would have like to have seen was to the whole ending. When things come to their climax it is almost impossible to tell what's going on, it doesn't make it anymore thrilling or intriguing, it's merely frustrating. A successful thriller can show me an almost pitch black scene and I'll be edging forward, eyes wide, waiting for whatever is going to make me jump out of my seat, but Dark Tide successfully bypasses that feeling in favour of leaving the viewer squinting at blackness.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/dark-tide-movie-review.html
Nick Friesen (96 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Jul 18, 2017
Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn (2 more)
Will Smith is Actually a Great Deadshot
The Two Seconds Batman is Involved
Weak Story (3 more)
Terrible Villain
PG-13 was an Underwhelming Choice
Most of the Characters are Forgettable
A Half-Assed Suicide (Squad) Attempt
After the success of Deadpool six months prior, an R-Rated anti-hero action movie that pushed the envelope, Suicide Squad just felt weak. The movie about DC's most famous rogues should have took a chance on an R rating as well. There's just something not quite right with these characters participating in a (mostly) family friendly romp. They fight black, faceless zombies, sort-of curse, and sometimes make lame jokes along the way. Along with that, there's too many characters crammed into the movie without any previous introduction or characterization. At the very least, Harley and the Joker should have been in an entire Batman movie before the Suicide Squad movie happened, if not Deadshot as well. Instead we get a miniature helping of Batman versus these foes in the early minutes of the movie, and then this ragtag group of baddies is thrown together to fight an evil bigger than themselves without much in the way of good storytelling. It's sad, really, because these characters are compelling in their own right. If DC really wants to have a cohesive movie universe, they need to slow down and build the movie versions of these characters before slapping them all together and expecting people to care. That, or at least give these awesome anti-heroes an equally awesome antagonist to square off with; the Enchantress is just lame.