Search
Search results
TeamSnap Sport Team Management
Sports and Productivity
App
TeamSnap is the No. 1 sports team, club and league management application. Focus on team development...
Phonics Island • Letter Sounds
Education and Games
App
***** Parents‘ Choice Awards winner ***** Developed by an award-winning education studios,...
Phonics Island, Letter Sounds games & Alphabet Learning: Preschool Kids Reading
Education and Games
App
***** Parents‘ Choice Awards’ winner ***** Developed by an award-winning education studios,...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Mar 18, 2023
Middle of the Road Marvel
The good news for long-time, hard core Marvel Cinematic Universe fans is that the next “big bad” in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been unleashed and we will now get to see “Kang The Conqueror” (in his permutations) battling our heroes for the foreseeable future.
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Darkest Lies in Books
Jul 26, 2017
Believable plot regarding child abduction (1 more)
The mystery is compelling
Frustrating protagonist, (2 more)
Extremely predictable
Good case for why civilians shouldn’t go rogue and get in the way of police work
A frustrating abduction mystery
You know that age in every teenager’s life where they start to become a little bit rebellious? Telling little white lies, sneaking out, hanging out with crowds they know the family wouldn’t approve of? It can be a scary time for parents, who knows who’s out there? The Darkest Lies is every parent’s worst nightmare and follows a mother who finds her world shattered when her daughter goes missing.
I’m going to come right out and say that this book was frustrating for me. The synopsis really caught my eye and the idea for the plot is intriguing. Unfortunately, issues with the protagonist as well as a shaky and highly predictable plot made for a mediocre experience.
The narration in this book was a little bit weird and I had a hard time getting used to it. It is primarily told using first person point of view though switches regularly to second person as Melanie speaks directly to Beth in her inner monologue. It was just uncomfortable to read.
What’s so bad about first person point of view? See the issue for me with first person narration is that it’s easy to end up alienating readers if it’s difficult to relate to the narrator, and boy did I dislike Melanie. To be blunt, she was really annoying. She was self-centered, mean-spirited, often blinded by her own hubris, and near the end has a bit of a messiah complex going which I found completely ridiculous. She was constantly complaining about the police’s incompetence, throwing herself in the way of the investigation despite being asked multiple times to back off before she could destroy their leads. “I couldn’t go home. I was too furious, too desperate to prove I was right and the police were wrong.”
I get it, she’s consumed with guilt and grief over what happened to her daughter, over not being able to protect her. Desperate people tend to lash out and do stupid things, but I just couldn’t believe anyone would be so foolish. Melanie’s antics do lead up to something important in the plot, but honestly she didn’t need any help making a fool of herself. Before all the crazy came out she was constantly breaking down every female character she encountered, often focusing in on their looks and finding ways to insult them. Neighbors, police officers working on the case, teenagers, it didn’t matter. There are numerous examples of Melanie exhibiting this jealous personality throughout the course of the book.
She spends more time going on drunken rampages pointing fingers at everyone in town, harassing the police, treating her husband like garbage while emotionally cheating with a friend, and avoiding actually seeing and being there for her daughter. While her awful actions over the course of the book is an important aspect of the plot, I just couldn’t justify it because she never learns and remains stubborn even after being told off multiple times. Add on top how stereotypically reckless she acts at the end instead of seeking help from the police because of course she doesn’t need them and I just couldn’t dig the story.
I liked the central idea around the dangers of teens sneaking out and trusting strangers, but the story meandered so much it kind of gets lost in Melanie’s mental collapse and crazed search for the culprit. The plot attempts to use some misdirection to keep the reader guessing but the construction was just sloppy, and the actual culprit isn’t even the character that Melanie cares about the most. Every “bad” character is so blatantly obvious that the advertised twist is really easy to see. I kept on reading because I wanted to know the how and the why. I think there was potential here, and if the author wanted to stick to the narrative that Mel is actually really nice and is just being manipulated then why does she remain every bit as petty and controlling? She is still unable to see past her own emotions and unable to learn from her mistakes. I wished that this could’ve ended with more character growth for the main character.
I’m going to come right out and say that this book was frustrating for me. The synopsis really caught my eye and the idea for the plot is intriguing. Unfortunately, issues with the protagonist as well as a shaky and highly predictable plot made for a mediocre experience.
The narration in this book was a little bit weird and I had a hard time getting used to it. It is primarily told using first person point of view though switches regularly to second person as Melanie speaks directly to Beth in her inner monologue. It was just uncomfortable to read.
What’s so bad about first person point of view? See the issue for me with first person narration is that it’s easy to end up alienating readers if it’s difficult to relate to the narrator, and boy did I dislike Melanie. To be blunt, she was really annoying. She was self-centered, mean-spirited, often blinded by her own hubris, and near the end has a bit of a messiah complex going which I found completely ridiculous. She was constantly complaining about the police’s incompetence, throwing herself in the way of the investigation despite being asked multiple times to back off before she could destroy their leads. “I couldn’t go home. I was too furious, too desperate to prove I was right and the police were wrong.”
I get it, she’s consumed with guilt and grief over what happened to her daughter, over not being able to protect her. Desperate people tend to lash out and do stupid things, but I just couldn’t believe anyone would be so foolish. Melanie’s antics do lead up to something important in the plot, but honestly she didn’t need any help making a fool of herself. Before all the crazy came out she was constantly breaking down every female character she encountered, often focusing in on their looks and finding ways to insult them. Neighbors, police officers working on the case, teenagers, it didn’t matter. There are numerous examples of Melanie exhibiting this jealous personality throughout the course of the book.
She spends more time going on drunken rampages pointing fingers at everyone in town, harassing the police, treating her husband like garbage while emotionally cheating with a friend, and avoiding actually seeing and being there for her daughter. While her awful actions over the course of the book is an important aspect of the plot, I just couldn’t justify it because she never learns and remains stubborn even after being told off multiple times. Add on top how stereotypically reckless she acts at the end instead of seeking help from the police because of course she doesn’t need them and I just couldn’t dig the story.
I liked the central idea around the dangers of teens sneaking out and trusting strangers, but the story meandered so much it kind of gets lost in Melanie’s mental collapse and crazed search for the culprit. The plot attempts to use some misdirection to keep the reader guessing but the construction was just sloppy, and the actual culprit isn’t even the character that Melanie cares about the most. Every “bad” character is so blatantly obvious that the advertised twist is really easy to see. I kept on reading because I wanted to know the how and the why. I think there was potential here, and if the author wanted to stick to the narrative that Mel is actually really nice and is just being manipulated then why does she remain every bit as petty and controlling? She is still unable to see past her own emotions and unable to learn from her mistakes. I wished that this could’ve ended with more character growth for the main character.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Circus Galacticus in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Have you ever wanted to run away and join the circus? How about a galaxy-traveling circus complete with your very own Doctor Who-like Ringmaster and spaceship? Sounds pretty awesome, right? While you sadly may not be able to do that in real life, Deva Fagan's Circus Galacticus takes the reader on a voyage through the stars. Okay, so maybe reading instead of experiencing those adventures isn't quite as fun, but it's still a grand ride to hop on while I impatiently wait for my very own Doctor to show up and whisk me away to galaxies unknown and unimagined.
Meet the Earther Beatrix "Trix" Ling: miserable, friendless orphan, you know, the usual. On the surface that is. Seriously unhappy at her boarding school, she often gets into trouble due to the fact she's quick to rile and doesn't think things through before acting or speaking. After a few weird events happen to Trix, such as some strange dude breaking into her room and her hair deciding it'd like to be a cotton candy pink, the Circus Galacticus comes to town promising her some answers. Here is where the journey for Trix and the reader begins. Aliens and gadgets abound, as do allies with their own special Tinker power and enemies trying to suppress that power, a spaceship that's alive with many mysterious corridors, and too much to even begin to cover, and really, they'd be better serviced by reading the book instead of this review. This book is like Doctor Who, The X-Men, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory all tossed into a blender to make one scrump-diddly-umptous concoction. Smoothly written, the book moves at a swift pace as Trix struggles to find somewhere she belongs, make and keep friends, and to believe she deserves it. I don't believe there's a person out there that hasn't felt like an outsider at one time or another, though some more-so than others perhaps, and while Trix may make mistakes and may not always follow rules, that only makes her all the more full-bodied as a character. Except a little with the Ringmaster and the circus tent spaceship, Big Top (as much a character as anyone, if not more), the others aren't delved into as much but they each add their own quirks to make the book well-rounded.
And while I'd heartily recommend Circus Galacticus with no reservations, it isn't a perfect book by any means. Trix's age is never mentioned and at one time she describes the others as her age or a few years older. Umm, okay, I don't even know how old you are, chica, so how am I supposed to know how old everyone else is? At first, I surmised she was somewhere between 12-16 until unneeded curse words popped up, so she's probably a teenager. I finally found out how old Trix was by going to the author's site. She's 15. Call me odd, but I like to know the main character's age. The book could also have stood to have a little more meat on its bones, even as little as fifty pages tacked on. This was like a sampler platter and I wanted a full-course meal. With dessert. So many questions were left unanswered and it is just begging for a sequel to explore these more fully. And as I said before, the curse words really added absolutely nothing to the context of the scenes they were in. Other words could have been substituted easily and been more fitting. Sure there weren't many, but this is intended for middle-grade students and except for the cursing, it's good, clean fun. I'm not naive enough to think that children don't come across foul language from many sources, and even use it themselves, but that doesn't mean that books tailored for their age range should include them either.
However, I had a blast travelling through space with the crew of the Big Top. If there is a sequel, and I truly hope there is, you can be sure I'll be there for the next adventure of Circus Galacticus.
If interested, the author has up illustrations of the main characters: http://devafagan.com/circus-galacticus-characters/
Meet the Earther Beatrix "Trix" Ling: miserable, friendless orphan, you know, the usual. On the surface that is. Seriously unhappy at her boarding school, she often gets into trouble due to the fact she's quick to rile and doesn't think things through before acting or speaking. After a few weird events happen to Trix, such as some strange dude breaking into her room and her hair deciding it'd like to be a cotton candy pink, the Circus Galacticus comes to town promising her some answers. Here is where the journey for Trix and the reader begins. Aliens and gadgets abound, as do allies with their own special Tinker power and enemies trying to suppress that power, a spaceship that's alive with many mysterious corridors, and too much to even begin to cover, and really, they'd be better serviced by reading the book instead of this review. This book is like Doctor Who, The X-Men, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory all tossed into a blender to make one scrump-diddly-umptous concoction. Smoothly written, the book moves at a swift pace as Trix struggles to find somewhere she belongs, make and keep friends, and to believe she deserves it. I don't believe there's a person out there that hasn't felt like an outsider at one time or another, though some more-so than others perhaps, and while Trix may make mistakes and may not always follow rules, that only makes her all the more full-bodied as a character. Except a little with the Ringmaster and the circus tent spaceship, Big Top (as much a character as anyone, if not more), the others aren't delved into as much but they each add their own quirks to make the book well-rounded.
And while I'd heartily recommend Circus Galacticus with no reservations, it isn't a perfect book by any means. Trix's age is never mentioned and at one time she describes the others as her age or a few years older. Umm, okay, I don't even know how old you are, chica, so how am I supposed to know how old everyone else is? At first, I surmised she was somewhere between 12-16 until unneeded curse words popped up, so she's probably a teenager. I finally found out how old Trix was by going to the author's site. She's 15. Call me odd, but I like to know the main character's age. The book could also have stood to have a little more meat on its bones, even as little as fifty pages tacked on. This was like a sampler platter and I wanted a full-course meal. With dessert. So many questions were left unanswered and it is just begging for a sequel to explore these more fully. And as I said before, the curse words really added absolutely nothing to the context of the scenes they were in. Other words could have been substituted easily and been more fitting. Sure there weren't many, but this is intended for middle-grade students and except for the cursing, it's good, clean fun. I'm not naive enough to think that children don't come across foul language from many sources, and even use it themselves, but that doesn't mean that books tailored for their age range should include them either.
However, I had a blast travelling through space with the crew of the Big Top. If there is a sequel, and I truly hope there is, you can be sure I'll be there for the next adventure of Circus Galacticus.
If interested, the author has up illustrations of the main characters: http://devafagan.com/circus-galacticus-characters/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019 (Updated Apr 10, 2019)
Fantastic performances all round (2 more)
Brilliant direction
Lighting is on point
Just You & I
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw Us last night and I really enjoyed it. It's the latest movie by comedian turned horror auteur Jordan Peele and after how much I loved Get Out, I was very much looking forward to seeing this. I think that if Us had came before Get Out, I probably would have enjoyed it more, as for every element that I enjoyed in Us, I couldn't help but keep thinking that it had already been done better in Get Out.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated How to Save a Life in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I won this book off of Facebook or Twitter; I forget which. I had totally forgot about this book, I'm ashamed to admit, until I was tidying up my bookshelf and came across it again. I'm glad I came across it again as it's definitely become one of my favourite reads of 2012.
Jill's dad has only recently died, and already it seems like her mother wants to replace him with a new baby. Enter Mandy. Mandy is a pregnant teen. She wants to give her baby up for adoption, and Robin, Jill's mother, seems like the perfect person to adopt her baby. Will Mandy and her baby help fill the whole in Robin and Jill's heart? Will Mandy feel loved? What if Mandy decides to keep her baby? Told from both Jill's and Mandy's point of view, this book will tug at your heart strings.
I don't really get the title to this book. Maybe there's some kind of hidden message behind the title, and I'm missing it, but I really don't understand why this book is called How to Save a Life. Perhaps it's to let the reader know that this book will be very emotional.
The cover suits the book especially when it comes to the character of Mandy. Once you read the book, you'll definitely think this cover suits the book. I won't say too much due to spoilers, but just take my word that it does indeed suit the book.
There's really not much to the setting of the book. It mostly takes place at Jill's house in Denver and a few other little places like Jill's school or restaurants. However, the setting of this book is done rather well, and it sounds like Denver!! I mean, I've never been, but it's what I'd imagine it to be.
The pacing was brilliant! It was so hard to put this book down. I was hooked beyond belief. At no point does the pacing slow down enough to become boring. Each chapter is interesting!!
The dialogue was perfect. The two main characters are teens, and I felt their language was appropriate for teen girls. There were a couple of words I didn't understand, but I think this was just down to me not knowing the what the word meant as others probably know what it means. However, this didn't take away from the story in the slightest. There are a few swear words, but not too many.
I loved the characters in this book!! Mandy was my favourite character. It felt as if Mandy's mother had brainwashed her into thinking all sorts of things, so Mandy comes off as being a bit socially inept. She's definitely a bit weird because of it, but that's what I loved about her. She has this sort of innocence and naivety that is both sweet and charming. I also loved Jill. She starts off with a "screw the world" attitude, but it's obvious she's only acting that way because of what she's been through. Jill is actually quite a sweet girl. As for Dylan and Ravi, I also loved them both. Dylan is very caring and comes across as the type that's nice to everyone no matter what. Ravi came across as the geeky but sexy sweet guy.
This book had me laughing and crying (quite literally). It also had me worried and made me feel secure. It plays up to most of the human emotions. It's just a bit hard to explain unless you read it, which I suggest you do ASAP! This book is an emotional rollercoaster. It's one of those books you just have to read!! It will also have you thinking about it long after you've finished reading it.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 16+. It's such an amazing book! I can't sing it's praises loud enough!! Please read it and let me know what you think. You won't regret reading it.
I won this book off of Facebook or Twitter; I forget which. I had totally forgot about this book, I'm ashamed to admit, until I was tidying up my bookshelf and came across it again. I'm glad I came across it again as it's definitely become one of my favourite reads of 2012.
Jill's dad has only recently died, and already it seems like her mother wants to replace him with a new baby. Enter Mandy. Mandy is a pregnant teen. She wants to give her baby up for adoption, and Robin, Jill's mother, seems like the perfect person to adopt her baby. Will Mandy and her baby help fill the whole in Robin and Jill's heart? Will Mandy feel loved? What if Mandy decides to keep her baby? Told from both Jill's and Mandy's point of view, this book will tug at your heart strings.
I don't really get the title to this book. Maybe there's some kind of hidden message behind the title, and I'm missing it, but I really don't understand why this book is called How to Save a Life. Perhaps it's to let the reader know that this book will be very emotional.
The cover suits the book especially when it comes to the character of Mandy. Once you read the book, you'll definitely think this cover suits the book. I won't say too much due to spoilers, but just take my word that it does indeed suit the book.
There's really not much to the setting of the book. It mostly takes place at Jill's house in Denver and a few other little places like Jill's school or restaurants. However, the setting of this book is done rather well, and it sounds like Denver!! I mean, I've never been, but it's what I'd imagine it to be.
The pacing was brilliant! It was so hard to put this book down. I was hooked beyond belief. At no point does the pacing slow down enough to become boring. Each chapter is interesting!!
The dialogue was perfect. The two main characters are teens, and I felt their language was appropriate for teen girls. There were a couple of words I didn't understand, but I think this was just down to me not knowing the what the word meant as others probably know what it means. However, this didn't take away from the story in the slightest. There are a few swear words, but not too many.
I loved the characters in this book!! Mandy was my favourite character. It felt as if Mandy's mother had brainwashed her into thinking all sorts of things, so Mandy comes off as being a bit socially inept. She's definitely a bit weird because of it, but that's what I loved about her. She has this sort of innocence and naivety that is both sweet and charming. I also loved Jill. She starts off with a "screw the world" attitude, but it's obvious she's only acting that way because of what she's been through. Jill is actually quite a sweet girl. As for Dylan and Ravi, I also loved them both. Dylan is very caring and comes across as the type that's nice to everyone no matter what. Ravi came across as the geeky but sexy sweet guy.
This book had me laughing and crying (quite literally). It also had me worried and made me feel secure. It plays up to most of the human emotions. It's just a bit hard to explain unless you read it, which I suggest you do ASAP! This book is an emotional rollercoaster. It's one of those books you just have to read!! It will also have you thinking about it long after you've finished reading it.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 16+. It's such an amazing book! I can't sing it's praises loud enough!! Please read it and let me know what you think. You won't regret reading it.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst in TV
Jun 27, 2018 (Updated Jun 27, 2018)
Mindblowing
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have been on a bit of a documentary kick lately and my most recent watch was the Jinx. I never watched this show back when it aired in 2015, or followed the story at the time, so I went into this show knowing very little about the tale it was telling. I'd say if you are in the same boat, then that is probably the best way to go into this doc. There are only six parts to the doc, so it can be binged over a few nights or in one day. Don't look up anything about it before watching and just go in blind, by the end your mind will be blown.
Please don't read on until you have seen the show in it's entirety as there are massive SPOILERS ahead. It feels weird to say that about a documentary, something that actually happened, but I promise you will not want this final revelation spoiled for you in any way.
Ok, so during the last interview, Andrew Jarecki confronts Robert Durst with two letters with the same address handwritten on each, one written by Durst years previous and the other was written by the killer and sent into a police station to notify them of the location of a body. Beverly Hills is spelt wrong in each, it is spelt BEVERLEY on each and the handwriting is exceptionally similar, especially the letter N. Durst initially appears pretty unphased by the accusation and brushes it off, until Jarecki asks him to look at a sheet that has the two versions of the address blown up and placed side by side and he asks him to tell him what one he wrote and what one he didn't and Durst is unable to tell the difference. He then begins burping uncontrollably as if trying to supress vomiting. The interview ends and Jarecki thanks Durst for his time. Durst then goes to the bathroom, unaware that he is still wearing a live microphone and says:
"There it is, you're caught.
You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Arrest him.
I don't know what's in the house.
Oh, I want this.
What a disaster.
He was right, I was wrong.
And the burping?
I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Killed them all, of course."
Holy shit, these filmmakers just stumbled into getting an accidental confession from a guy who has dodged the law since 1982. Not only that, but what was recorded actually sounds like two different people having a conversation, almost like Gollum and Sméagol from Lord Of The Rings. The recording is creepy, but extremely important and provides an absolutely captivating ending to this already brilliant story. I think that what we hear in the bathroom is two sides of Durst arguing about what has just transpired. The way that each line is like a comment and then a response and the way that his tone of voice changes from line to line. I will type up my interpretation of the conversation below showing what side of Durst said what.
Good Bob: There it is, you're caught.
Bad Bob: You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Good Bob: Arrest him.
Bad Bob: I don't know what's in the house.
Good Bob: Oh, I want this.
Bad Bob: What a disaster.
Good Bob:He was right, I was wrong.
Bad Bob: And the burping?
Good Bob: I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Bad Bob: Killed them all, of course.
This is obviously pure conjecture, but it's how I see the conversation going in Durst's head. Whether this is proof of disassociation or multiple personality disorder, I don't know as I'm not a psychiatrist, all that I know is that it is absolutely fascinating to hear this play out in a real world situation and makes for an absolutely brilliant piece of TV.
Please don't read on until you have seen the show in it's entirety as there are massive SPOILERS ahead. It feels weird to say that about a documentary, something that actually happened, but I promise you will not want this final revelation spoiled for you in any way.
Ok, so during the last interview, Andrew Jarecki confronts Robert Durst with two letters with the same address handwritten on each, one written by Durst years previous and the other was written by the killer and sent into a police station to notify them of the location of a body. Beverly Hills is spelt wrong in each, it is spelt BEVERLEY on each and the handwriting is exceptionally similar, especially the letter N. Durst initially appears pretty unphased by the accusation and brushes it off, until Jarecki asks him to look at a sheet that has the two versions of the address blown up and placed side by side and he asks him to tell him what one he wrote and what one he didn't and Durst is unable to tell the difference. He then begins burping uncontrollably as if trying to supress vomiting. The interview ends and Jarecki thanks Durst for his time. Durst then goes to the bathroom, unaware that he is still wearing a live microphone and says:
"There it is, you're caught.
You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Arrest him.
I don't know what's in the house.
Oh, I want this.
What a disaster.
He was right, I was wrong.
And the burping?
I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Killed them all, of course."
Holy shit, these filmmakers just stumbled into getting an accidental confession from a guy who has dodged the law since 1982. Not only that, but what was recorded actually sounds like two different people having a conversation, almost like Gollum and Sméagol from Lord Of The Rings. The recording is creepy, but extremely important and provides an absolutely captivating ending to this already brilliant story. I think that what we hear in the bathroom is two sides of Durst arguing about what has just transpired. The way that each line is like a comment and then a response and the way that his tone of voice changes from line to line. I will type up my interpretation of the conversation below showing what side of Durst said what.
Good Bob: There it is, you're caught.
Bad Bob: You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Good Bob: Arrest him.
Bad Bob: I don't know what's in the house.
Good Bob: Oh, I want this.
Bad Bob: What a disaster.
Good Bob:He was right, I was wrong.
Bad Bob: And the burping?
Good Bob: I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Bad Bob: Killed them all, of course.
This is obviously pure conjecture, but it's how I see the conversation going in Durst's head. Whether this is proof of disassociation or multiple personality disorder, I don't know as I'm not a psychiatrist, all that I know is that it is absolutely fascinating to hear this play out in a real world situation and makes for an absolutely brilliant piece of TV.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Legend of Hell House (1973) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Mr. Rudolph Deutsch has hired Lionel Barrett to investigate a haunted house. This isn't any normal haunted house though. It seems as though anyone who enters the house either leaves the house insane or winds up dead. In addition to Mr Barrett, his wife, Ann Barrett, a mental medium named Florence Tanner, and a physical medium who is also the only survivor of the last team of investigators to visit the house named Benjamin Fischer are all visiting Hell House to try and solve this phenomenon. $100,000 is theirs for the taking if they can do it within a week, but will they be able to survive what's caged inside Hell House? Emeric Belasco, a self-proclaimed genius ahead of his time, may have other plans.
The Legend of Hell House isn't your average horror film about paranormal activity. I'll be up front with you right now, I'm not a big fan of movies about ghosts. I'm just not. I've come across a few that were decent, but I didn't think they were anything special or I just wound up not liking them at all. I actually liked this a lot more than I thought I would. The film isn't heavy on blood, gore, or cheap scares. In fact, more often than not, the scares come from what you don't see rather than what you actually do.
The acting is definitely a strong point in the film. The entire cast has their moments of brilliance during the insanity Hell House is putting them through, but Roddy McDowall is the actor who stands out amonst the rest. His performance just seems to outshine everyone else and he steals just about every scene he's in. There's a scene in the film where he starts screaming and falls to the floor in a seizure like maneuver that reminded me a lot of some of the scenes with Bruce Campbell in Evil Dead. The explanation was that he was blocking himself off from the house since he had been there before. As a physical medium, he was basically putting up walls to defend himself from the house this time around. And in this scene, I guess he tried lowering his guard for a bit and...this happened. The speeches he gives though, his facial expressions and body language, and cold tone. It's weird, but a guy that you look at at the beginning of the film and say to yourself that you're going to hate him because he looks smarmy and only really cares about himself winds up being the highlight of the film.
Another aspect of the film I really enjoyed were the special effects of the film. There's no CGI or anything, but the effects in the film are done very well. There's a scene where Ms. Tanner looks into her bedroom and sees someone lying under the covers in her bed and when she lifts up the covers, you can't see anyone but the door opens and slams like someone was getting up and leaving. It was just done very well. The effects like that were done very well. There are a few that look cheesy(cat in the shower scene, anyone?), but overall they look very good given how old the film is.
The plot was surprising, as well. I wasn't expecting anything really original or anything, but the fact that science is involved so heavily in trying rid the house of its supernatural presence was not only interesting, but a breath of fresh air compared to other methods I would've expected based on other films.
I think it's safe to say that The Legend of Hell House is one of the best haunted house films ever made and the best one I've seen as of this review. It probably isn't the type of horror film for gorehounds or if you're looking for a bloodfest. It's more of a paranormal film with a slight psychological twist. The acting is top notch and the story is a bit more clever than you may give it credit for at first glance.
The Legend of Hell House isn't your average horror film about paranormal activity. I'll be up front with you right now, I'm not a big fan of movies about ghosts. I'm just not. I've come across a few that were decent, but I didn't think they were anything special or I just wound up not liking them at all. I actually liked this a lot more than I thought I would. The film isn't heavy on blood, gore, or cheap scares. In fact, more often than not, the scares come from what you don't see rather than what you actually do.
The acting is definitely a strong point in the film. The entire cast has their moments of brilliance during the insanity Hell House is putting them through, but Roddy McDowall is the actor who stands out amonst the rest. His performance just seems to outshine everyone else and he steals just about every scene he's in. There's a scene in the film where he starts screaming and falls to the floor in a seizure like maneuver that reminded me a lot of some of the scenes with Bruce Campbell in Evil Dead. The explanation was that he was blocking himself off from the house since he had been there before. As a physical medium, he was basically putting up walls to defend himself from the house this time around. And in this scene, I guess he tried lowering his guard for a bit and...this happened. The speeches he gives though, his facial expressions and body language, and cold tone. It's weird, but a guy that you look at at the beginning of the film and say to yourself that you're going to hate him because he looks smarmy and only really cares about himself winds up being the highlight of the film.
Another aspect of the film I really enjoyed were the special effects of the film. There's no CGI or anything, but the effects in the film are done very well. There's a scene where Ms. Tanner looks into her bedroom and sees someone lying under the covers in her bed and when she lifts up the covers, you can't see anyone but the door opens and slams like someone was getting up and leaving. It was just done very well. The effects like that were done very well. There are a few that look cheesy(cat in the shower scene, anyone?), but overall they look very good given how old the film is.
The plot was surprising, as well. I wasn't expecting anything really original or anything, but the fact that science is involved so heavily in trying rid the house of its supernatural presence was not only interesting, but a breath of fresh air compared to other methods I would've expected based on other films.
I think it's safe to say that The Legend of Hell House is one of the best haunted house films ever made and the best one I've seen as of this review. It probably isn't the type of horror film for gorehounds or if you're looking for a bloodfest. It's more of a paranormal film with a slight psychological twist. The acting is top notch and the story is a bit more clever than you may give it credit for at first glance.
