Search
Search results
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Temple House Vanishing in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Book-Review-Banner-29.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>Twenty-five years ago, a sixteen-year-old schoolgirl and her charismatic teacher disappeared without trace…</i></b>
The Temple House Vanishing left me with a tiny scar in my soul after reading it. It is intriguing and mysterious, it is real and delusional. The next time when I mention a special mystery, with a cruel end – this will be the first book that pops in my mind.
Louisa and Victoria are two friends that study in a Catholic girls’ boarding school. Both of them have something unique about themselves. They can both see the world in a different light and disobey the rules slightly.
They both also manage to become intrigued with their young, bohemian teacher and act in silly ways when they are around him. Until, one night, he and Louisa suddenly disappear.
Twenty-five years later, one journalist dives into the story again, hoping to finally find out the truth. The search for truth will uncover many buried secrets and a suppressed desire. It will break hearts and lay a lost soul to rest.
This novel might be the most intense novel I have read in 2019, right next to The Silent Patient. And The Devil Aspect. To witness the life of Louisa, and be aware of what is happening around her is quite intense. As soon as she meets Victoria, they click, and they both know they will become best friends. But even Louisa can feel that there is something odd about Victoria. After all, her last best friend left the school and no one knows what happened.
<b><i>On that subject – why didn’t we find out what happened to this girl?</i></b>
One friendship, and a very interestingly weird love triangle. I felt so bad for Louisa, because all she ever cared about was Victoria. And all she ever wanted to do is to help in any way. She loved Victoria, but she should’ve said something. If she spoke – everything would now be different.
The teacher reminded me of one of my high-school teachers. The type of person that will show you that the world isn’t how you’ve always known it. There is a meaning behind it all, and there is a purpose for everything. My teacher, she could make me feel like I was able to achieve everything. Anything was possible, if we only followed the right path. Mr Lavelle made all the girls feel like this, and counting his beautiful face as well, it’s no surprise that most of them fell in love with him. But he encouraged them, in his own subtle way. Sweet look in the eyes, gentle touch on the shoulder, and that is all it takes to confuse a teenage girl.
What I loved most in this book was the fact that I had so many theories whilst reading it. I was certain I knew how it all ended. But I was wrong. I didn’t have a clue on what was actually happening until the very end, and I was still surprised. After finishing the book and having a little think, as I always do with books that amaze me – I realised something. The clues were there from the very beginning. But unless you already know the ending I doubt you will notice them. And that is the great masterpiece of writing. And for that, I salute you, Rachel Donohue.
<b><i>If you love mysteries, thrillers, disappearances and unpredictable endings – I will guarantee you will love this book. And not only that, but you will also devour it in a day!</i></b>
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/The-Temple-House-Vanishing.jpg?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>Thank you to the team at LoveReading UK, for letting me part of the Ambassador Book Buzz and sending me an ARC copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. Check out the other amazing bloggers too! </i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Book-Review-Banner-29.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>Twenty-five years ago, a sixteen-year-old schoolgirl and her charismatic teacher disappeared without trace…</i></b>
The Temple House Vanishing left me with a tiny scar in my soul after reading it. It is intriguing and mysterious, it is real and delusional. The next time when I mention a special mystery, with a cruel end – this will be the first book that pops in my mind.
Louisa and Victoria are two friends that study in a Catholic girls’ boarding school. Both of them have something unique about themselves. They can both see the world in a different light and disobey the rules slightly.
They both also manage to become intrigued with their young, bohemian teacher and act in silly ways when they are around him. Until, one night, he and Louisa suddenly disappear.
Twenty-five years later, one journalist dives into the story again, hoping to finally find out the truth. The search for truth will uncover many buried secrets and a suppressed desire. It will break hearts and lay a lost soul to rest.
This novel might be the most intense novel I have read in 2019, right next to The Silent Patient. And The Devil Aspect. To witness the life of Louisa, and be aware of what is happening around her is quite intense. As soon as she meets Victoria, they click, and they both know they will become best friends. But even Louisa can feel that there is something odd about Victoria. After all, her last best friend left the school and no one knows what happened.
<b><i>On that subject – why didn’t we find out what happened to this girl?</i></b>
One friendship, and a very interestingly weird love triangle. I felt so bad for Louisa, because all she ever cared about was Victoria. And all she ever wanted to do is to help in any way. She loved Victoria, but she should’ve said something. If she spoke – everything would now be different.
The teacher reminded me of one of my high-school teachers. The type of person that will show you that the world isn’t how you’ve always known it. There is a meaning behind it all, and there is a purpose for everything. My teacher, she could make me feel like I was able to achieve everything. Anything was possible, if we only followed the right path. Mr Lavelle made all the girls feel like this, and counting his beautiful face as well, it’s no surprise that most of them fell in love with him. But he encouraged them, in his own subtle way. Sweet look in the eyes, gentle touch on the shoulder, and that is all it takes to confuse a teenage girl.
What I loved most in this book was the fact that I had so many theories whilst reading it. I was certain I knew how it all ended. But I was wrong. I didn’t have a clue on what was actually happening until the very end, and I was still surprised. After finishing the book and having a little think, as I always do with books that amaze me – I realised something. The clues were there from the very beginning. But unless you already know the ending I doubt you will notice them. And that is the great masterpiece of writing. And for that, I salute you, Rachel Donohue.
<b><i>If you love mysteries, thrillers, disappearances and unpredictable endings – I will guarantee you will love this book. And not only that, but you will also devour it in a day!</i></b>
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/The-Temple-House-Vanishing.jpg?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>Thank you to the team at LoveReading UK, for letting me part of the Ambassador Book Buzz and sending me an ARC copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. Check out the other amazing bloggers too! </i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 16, 2020 (Updated Jan 16, 2020)
Cutting satire (1 more)
Great ensemble cast
Don't be stupid, be a smarty
Taika Waititi's much discussed movie is an odd beast. Set in a small German town towards the end of the war, Jojo (Roman Griffith Davis), is a young boy indoctrinated with Nazi fervour as a member of the Hitler youth. Together with his rotund and bespectacled friend Yorki (Archie Yates), they are not likely to spread fear into the approaching Allied forces: they are a pair that would be likely to get picked last for 'sides' in a school football match.
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
A Comedy Classic
My daughter was flipping channels the other day and ran across the great 1984 Supernatural comedy GHOSTBUSTERS and stopped to watch for awhile. As happens with her generation, she eventually got more interested in her phone and friends and wandered away. Me? I was drawn back into this film so much so that I went downstairs, grabbed the DVD (yes, kids, I still own DVDs) and popped the film into my Home Theater System to give it a proper viewing.
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated His and Hers in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-55.png"/>;
With His and Hers by Alice Feeney, prepare to jump on a ride where one murder will open up the gates of the past, and expose a lot of people in a very brutal way.
I am extremely happy and proud I can be part of the blog tour for this book!
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
When a woman is murdered in Blackdown village, Anna Andrews needs to go there to cover the story. However, her hometown brings back a lot of unwanted memories.
Her ex-husband, DCI Jack Harper is investigating the murder and is very suspicious of Anna's involvement. That is, until he becomes a suspect himself.
<b><i>My Thoughts: </i></b>
I have to admit, at the beginning I though this will be a domestic thriller, and I am not too keen on them. I enjoy them, but I prefer psychological thrillers more. It turned out that His and Hers is not only a psychological thriller, but also a very well written one. I have only read one book from Alice Feeney before,<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2798981407?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">I Know Who You Are</a>, and I also enjoyed it, so I was expecting to enjoy this one as well.
<b><i>The chapters are split into three points of view.</i></b>
The first one is Her - Anna's point of view. The second one is Him - Jack's story. The third one is the point of view of the killer, who has their own thoughts and explanations. And the beautiful thing about the third point of view is that we don't know who it might be until the very end of the book. That point of view is so well written, that I kept guessing who it might be, and kept changing my mind. At the end, the answer was so surprising and satisfying in the end. And once I knew who the killer is, I went back and read those pages again, and they had a completely another meaning for me. Kudos to Alice for making this possible, as I know not everyone can manage to do this!
<b><i>"And I pay attention to the little things, because they are often the biggest clues to who a person really is. People rarely see themselves the way others do; we all carry broken mirrors."
Dementia</i></b>
The book also briefly focuses on Dementia, and we get to experience the moment Anna realises her mother is ill. For me, this had a special meaning, having experience working with people suffering from dementia, and the writing of the symptoms was very accurate. The reaction of Anna was quite accurate as well, in terms of how hard it was to notice, but also how much harder is to actually accept this fact.
<b><i>"Mum doesn't always remember that I'm thirty-six and live in London. She frequently forgets that I have a job, and that I used to have a husband and a child of my own. She didn't even seem to know that it was my birthday. There was no card this year, or last, but it's not her fault. Time is something my mother has forgotten how to tell. It moves differently for her now, often backwards instead of forwards. Dementia stole time from my mother, and stole my mother from me."</i></b>
If you get to read His and Hers, prepare for many twists, many mysteries, a lot of drama and betrayals. The ending was the most satisfying part for me, but I enjoyed this book all the way through and struggled to put it down. I recommend it to everyone that is in love with mystery thrillers, especially the ones that focus on the psychological aspect.
<b><i>"Youth fools us into thinking there are infinite paths to choose from in life; maturity tricks us into thinking there is only one."</i></b>
Thank you to the HQ Team, for sending me an ARC copy of this book in exchange for an honest review!
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-55.png"/>;
With His and Hers by Alice Feeney, prepare to jump on a ride where one murder will open up the gates of the past, and expose a lot of people in a very brutal way.
I am extremely happy and proud I can be part of the blog tour for this book!
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
When a woman is murdered in Blackdown village, Anna Andrews needs to go there to cover the story. However, her hometown brings back a lot of unwanted memories.
Her ex-husband, DCI Jack Harper is investigating the murder and is very suspicious of Anna's involvement. That is, until he becomes a suspect himself.
<b><i>My Thoughts: </i></b>
I have to admit, at the beginning I though this will be a domestic thriller, and I am not too keen on them. I enjoy them, but I prefer psychological thrillers more. It turned out that His and Hers is not only a psychological thriller, but also a very well written one. I have only read one book from Alice Feeney before,<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2798981407?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">I Know Who You Are</a>, and I also enjoyed it, so I was expecting to enjoy this one as well.
<b><i>The chapters are split into three points of view.</i></b>
The first one is Her - Anna's point of view. The second one is Him - Jack's story. The third one is the point of view of the killer, who has their own thoughts and explanations. And the beautiful thing about the third point of view is that we don't know who it might be until the very end of the book. That point of view is so well written, that I kept guessing who it might be, and kept changing my mind. At the end, the answer was so surprising and satisfying in the end. And once I knew who the killer is, I went back and read those pages again, and they had a completely another meaning for me. Kudos to Alice for making this possible, as I know not everyone can manage to do this!
<b><i>"And I pay attention to the little things, because they are often the biggest clues to who a person really is. People rarely see themselves the way others do; we all carry broken mirrors."
Dementia</i></b>
The book also briefly focuses on Dementia, and we get to experience the moment Anna realises her mother is ill. For me, this had a special meaning, having experience working with people suffering from dementia, and the writing of the symptoms was very accurate. The reaction of Anna was quite accurate as well, in terms of how hard it was to notice, but also how much harder is to actually accept this fact.
<b><i>"Mum doesn't always remember that I'm thirty-six and live in London. She frequently forgets that I have a job, and that I used to have a husband and a child of my own. She didn't even seem to know that it was my birthday. There was no card this year, or last, but it's not her fault. Time is something my mother has forgotten how to tell. It moves differently for her now, often backwards instead of forwards. Dementia stole time from my mother, and stole my mother from me."</i></b>
If you get to read His and Hers, prepare for many twists, many mysteries, a lot of drama and betrayals. The ending was the most satisfying part for me, but I enjoyed this book all the way through and struggled to put it down. I recommend it to everyone that is in love with mystery thrillers, especially the ones that focus on the psychological aspect.
<b><i>"Youth fools us into thinking there are infinite paths to choose from in life; maturity tricks us into thinking there is only one."</i></b>
Thank you to the HQ Team, for sending me an ARC copy of this book in exchange for an honest review!
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
May 5, 2020
Asks more questions than it answers. (3 more)
Fails to recover from the damages of The Last Jedi.
No sense to the narrative.
Some acting is appalling.
Goodbye, Star Wars.
Almost six months from its release, I finally sat down and treated myself to Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker. Ever since Disney took over the Star Wars brand, I've been sceptical of their intentions with the property, and so far I've been massively disappointed. I enjoyed the Mandalorian, and still believe Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is easily as good as the original trilogy. Controversial, I know. But the newest trilogy has dropped my interest in Star Wars altogether, as they've so far been bogged down by awful writing, humongous plot holes, and the butchering of beloved characters to make way for wooden new ones. The Force Awakens was a step in the right direction, but the nostalgia factor was what drew me in. Eight years on, it hasn't aged well at all. The Last Jedi became my Stopping point in the Galaxy far, far away. Yes it has flair and popped visually, but the story was an insult to all the fans who had cherished Star Wars back in the days of the Original trilogy. After countless rewrites, multiple directors, and suspicions of actors within feeling disheartened with the over arc of their characters (looking at you, John Boyega), The Rise of Skywalker is finally here to cap of Disney's first trilogy.
What a disaster.
The Rise of Skywalker is an incoherent, messy and boring experience to chug through. Time and time again throughout the two and a half hours, I face palmed in absolute cringe and embarrassment at what Disney have done to this once celebrated franchise. The film feels rushed, on edge to get to the next destination for the newest plot point, without explaining or finishing the previous one, pointing even more towards those rewritten scripts. The film feels like multiple entries, crammed into one sprawling narrative that can't be resolved in the time given, this is especially the case with characters like Poe and Finn, who's arcs have been destroyed to make way for Rey, and that is the biggest issue. Rey has been written as the central moving force of this trilogy, but she never undergoes any development. Sure, she learns a few things about herself in this film, and challenges the idea of who she is for a brief moment, but she’s been made the perfect Jedi without trying. Its poor and lazy writing, and fans have began to feel an agenda is presenting itself. Whilst the women feel strong, wise, intelligent, the men are all morons, blundering their way through the story and often bickering with each other. Its an observation as a critic and fan, and its made me loath almost every character introduced since The Force Awakens. It became clear how little I cared about anything that was happening when a moment of embrace for the three main heroes once the final act ended. It should feel emotional, impactful, but it feels hollow, even forced. Much like most of the decision making of the film itself.
This brings me neatly onto the content of the film, if you can make any sense of it. If this is supposed to end the Skywalker saga once and for all, why add ridiculous plot threads and more pointless characters,that add no weight or purpose to the narrative? The ending is cut so quickly after the anti-climatic ending, that we don’t even have an idea of any characters finishing point. This is just one example of how badly things have spiralled into a mish mash of ideas from different writers and directors. If The Last Jedi was the franchise jumping into a well, this film is trying it's best to climb out. The two previous entries at least connected, but this feels a stand alone chapter, with no context or reason for what happens, and what does happen makes you scratch your head all the more.
I feel sorry for the hardcore fanbase, it genuinely feels like a slap in the face to history George Lucas has created. Once you lose the interest of your core audience, I feel its time to cut your losses. And yet again, another franchise has seen its demise. It feels like a symptomatic failure that the entertainment industry still don’t understand. You can buy any brand you want, but you can’t buy the fans love. Whatever direction Star Wars goes into next, I will not be tuning in.
What a disaster.
The Rise of Skywalker is an incoherent, messy and boring experience to chug through. Time and time again throughout the two and a half hours, I face palmed in absolute cringe and embarrassment at what Disney have done to this once celebrated franchise. The film feels rushed, on edge to get to the next destination for the newest plot point, without explaining or finishing the previous one, pointing even more towards those rewritten scripts. The film feels like multiple entries, crammed into one sprawling narrative that can't be resolved in the time given, this is especially the case with characters like Poe and Finn, who's arcs have been destroyed to make way for Rey, and that is the biggest issue. Rey has been written as the central moving force of this trilogy, but she never undergoes any development. Sure, she learns a few things about herself in this film, and challenges the idea of who she is for a brief moment, but she’s been made the perfect Jedi without trying. Its poor and lazy writing, and fans have began to feel an agenda is presenting itself. Whilst the women feel strong, wise, intelligent, the men are all morons, blundering their way through the story and often bickering with each other. Its an observation as a critic and fan, and its made me loath almost every character introduced since The Force Awakens. It became clear how little I cared about anything that was happening when a moment of embrace for the three main heroes once the final act ended. It should feel emotional, impactful, but it feels hollow, even forced. Much like most of the decision making of the film itself.
This brings me neatly onto the content of the film, if you can make any sense of it. If this is supposed to end the Skywalker saga once and for all, why add ridiculous plot threads and more pointless characters,that add no weight or purpose to the narrative? The ending is cut so quickly after the anti-climatic ending, that we don’t even have an idea of any characters finishing point. This is just one example of how badly things have spiralled into a mish mash of ideas from different writers and directors. If The Last Jedi was the franchise jumping into a well, this film is trying it's best to climb out. The two previous entries at least connected, but this feels a stand alone chapter, with no context or reason for what happens, and what does happen makes you scratch your head all the more.
I feel sorry for the hardcore fanbase, it genuinely feels like a slap in the face to history George Lucas has created. Once you lose the interest of your core audience, I feel its time to cut your losses. And yet again, another franchise has seen its demise. It feels like a symptomatic failure that the entertainment industry still don’t understand. You can buy any brand you want, but you can’t buy the fans love. Whatever direction Star Wars goes into next, I will not be tuning in.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Scarlet Princess in Books
Aug 30, 2021
Death was a hefty price to pay for vodka.
I mean with an opening line like that you know it’s going to be a great book right?!
Regular readers will know I’m a bit of an ElBin fangirl and often devour their books in 1 or 2 days. Scarlet Princess was no exception: I kept my kids fed and held down my full-time job for the day but the rest of the time was spent reading this amazing return into the Lochlann world.
Scarlet Princess is the first in the Lochlann Feuds series which is based approximately 20 years after Autumn’s Reign, the final in the Lochlann Treaty series. However, you don’t have to read the Lochlann Treaty in order to read Scarlet Princess: the world building, plot and characters shine just as brightly for this to be a standalone novel.
“It’s a lotus flower. They’re rare, complex flowers. Difficult to keep alive.”
“That doesn’t sound like anyone I know”
Scarlet Princess introduces us to Rowan, the Princess of Lochlann and her cousin Davin, whom we briefly met in the Lochlann Treaty. The cousins give the impression that they either go looking for trouble, or trouble just finds them! Therefore, it shouldn’t be so surprising that when we meet them, Rowan and Davin are just about to find themselves imprisoned in the neighbouring kingdom of Socair.
Sadly, Socair and Lochlann don’t have the friendliest history so getting home will be no easy feat for the cousins, if they can escape death first.
“Amicable and accommodating, Princess. I wonder if you are capable of either.“
Rowan is, without a doubt, a product of her parents: with her fiery red curls and equally fiery attitude it is easy for us to assume that Rowan takes after her father but then you find yourself internally shouting (or externally- no judgement) “why did you do that?!” and suddenly you see her mother's emotional, impulsive nature.
The smart mouth and the booziness? Well that’s just what makes Rowan, Rowan! And we love her for it!
“Am I boring you Princess Rowan?” He sighed.
“Always”
As Rowan’s journey continues though we see that she has been deeply affected by her parents’ quest for love. Our princess is quite closed off to love and is happy for a marriage to be arranged for her. At her young age Rowan equates love with warring kingdoms, losing children, losing husbands: ultimately, she equates love with loss.
Maybe that is why Rowan hides behind a mask of sarcasm and glib comments, seldom ever facing the reality of her predicament until it is too late.
I didn’t want the kind of love that could break you.
Behind her sarcasm though it is clear Rowan cares deeply about issues such as poverty and equality. She is forced to see that her life is very different in Lochlann, where villagers are not suffering and are looked after by their leaders; women are not seen as quiet mice who need protecting as they are in Socair. Maybe, just maybe, her life in Lochlann wasn’t as bad as she thought? But will Rowan ever see Lochlann again?
Besides, I never had been good at making the smart choice.
The cast of characters surrounding Rowan are equally as amazing as our princess. Davin is a ladies’ man just like his father, Iiro is authoritative one minute but then casually tortures his brother sensibilities the next and Mila is a great friend who comes swooping into Rowan’s life – there is definitely more to Mila than meets the eye though.
Rowan’s escort through Socair and the poor soul on the other end of most of her sarcasm is Lord Theodore, her captor and the heir to the Elk clan. Theo is fair where Rowan is fiery; stoic where she is scandalous and the tension between them …. oof it’s enough to make you swoon!
“You know when something just catches your attention and you can’t explain it?“
I loved revisiting Lochlann only to be immersed in the Kingdom of Socair: the mysterious enemy lurking behind the mountain. The 9 clans created a whole new dynamic from the previous books and the plot arc could have easily got lost within all the clan politics but it flowed beautifully.
All I will say is that I really shouldn’t trust Robin and Elle with happy endings – they will always rip it away with a few chapters to go. These two are the Queens of cliff-hangers!
Grab your copy of Scarlet Princess on August 27th 2021. Devour it in one day and then join me anxiously anticipating the sequel, Tarnished Crown in November 2021.
I mean with an opening line like that you know it’s going to be a great book right?!
Regular readers will know I’m a bit of an ElBin fangirl and often devour their books in 1 or 2 days. Scarlet Princess was no exception: I kept my kids fed and held down my full-time job for the day but the rest of the time was spent reading this amazing return into the Lochlann world.
Scarlet Princess is the first in the Lochlann Feuds series which is based approximately 20 years after Autumn’s Reign, the final in the Lochlann Treaty series. However, you don’t have to read the Lochlann Treaty in order to read Scarlet Princess: the world building, plot and characters shine just as brightly for this to be a standalone novel.
“It’s a lotus flower. They’re rare, complex flowers. Difficult to keep alive.”
“That doesn’t sound like anyone I know”
Scarlet Princess introduces us to Rowan, the Princess of Lochlann and her cousin Davin, whom we briefly met in the Lochlann Treaty. The cousins give the impression that they either go looking for trouble, or trouble just finds them! Therefore, it shouldn’t be so surprising that when we meet them, Rowan and Davin are just about to find themselves imprisoned in the neighbouring kingdom of Socair.
Sadly, Socair and Lochlann don’t have the friendliest history so getting home will be no easy feat for the cousins, if they can escape death first.
“Amicable and accommodating, Princess. I wonder if you are capable of either.“
Rowan is, without a doubt, a product of her parents: with her fiery red curls and equally fiery attitude it is easy for us to assume that Rowan takes after her father but then you find yourself internally shouting (or externally- no judgement) “why did you do that?!” and suddenly you see her mother's emotional, impulsive nature.
The smart mouth and the booziness? Well that’s just what makes Rowan, Rowan! And we love her for it!
“Am I boring you Princess Rowan?” He sighed.
“Always”
As Rowan’s journey continues though we see that she has been deeply affected by her parents’ quest for love. Our princess is quite closed off to love and is happy for a marriage to be arranged for her. At her young age Rowan equates love with warring kingdoms, losing children, losing husbands: ultimately, she equates love with loss.
Maybe that is why Rowan hides behind a mask of sarcasm and glib comments, seldom ever facing the reality of her predicament until it is too late.
I didn’t want the kind of love that could break you.
Behind her sarcasm though it is clear Rowan cares deeply about issues such as poverty and equality. She is forced to see that her life is very different in Lochlann, where villagers are not suffering and are looked after by their leaders; women are not seen as quiet mice who need protecting as they are in Socair. Maybe, just maybe, her life in Lochlann wasn’t as bad as she thought? But will Rowan ever see Lochlann again?
Besides, I never had been good at making the smart choice.
The cast of characters surrounding Rowan are equally as amazing as our princess. Davin is a ladies’ man just like his father, Iiro is authoritative one minute but then casually tortures his brother sensibilities the next and Mila is a great friend who comes swooping into Rowan’s life – there is definitely more to Mila than meets the eye though.
Rowan’s escort through Socair and the poor soul on the other end of most of her sarcasm is Lord Theodore, her captor and the heir to the Elk clan. Theo is fair where Rowan is fiery; stoic where she is scandalous and the tension between them …. oof it’s enough to make you swoon!
“You know when something just catches your attention and you can’t explain it?“
I loved revisiting Lochlann only to be immersed in the Kingdom of Socair: the mysterious enemy lurking behind the mountain. The 9 clans created a whole new dynamic from the previous books and the plot arc could have easily got lost within all the clan politics but it flowed beautifully.
All I will say is that I really shouldn’t trust Robin and Elle with happy endings – they will always rip it away with a few chapters to go. These two are the Queens of cliff-hangers!
Grab your copy of Scarlet Princess on August 27th 2021. Devour it in one day and then join me anxiously anticipating the sequel, Tarnished Crown in November 2021.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alone in Berlin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Small Rebellions.
Once again, World War II turns up another true story of quiet valour to turn into a motion picture. At a time when Trump is pontificating about so called “fake news”, here is a timely tale from history which centres on the battle against genuinely fake news: the Nazi propaganda machine.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 26, 2021 (Updated Mar 26, 2021)
The movie as a whole is better than the original. (2 more)
The darker tone, R rating and additional scenes of violence and bloodshed.
The additional scenes for Cyborg's and Flash's story arc were welcome and did their characters justice.
4 hour length was way too long. (2 more)
The aspect ratio being in 4:3 instead of widescreen.
I didn't like certain things about the addition of Darkseid.
This Version Far Surpasses The Original Released
This movie was way better than the one that was released in theaters. I have to say it is a super long movie but honestly the time just flew by while I was watching it. I also broke it up into 2x two hour halves but another way would be to break it into 6 parts like it has been segmented into in the movie already with 5 chapters/parts and an epilogue. I think it helped that I didn't watch the original one right before I saw this one too. I didn't because I didn't want to be too "Justice Leagued" out and because I knew that it was going to be a 4 hour movie already. There were definitely some parts that felt like they needed to be included in the original for the story to make more sense and be more cohesive story-wise but there were more than a couple that were unnecessary and could have still been left on the cutting floor in my opinion. Now people that are expecting this to be a whole new movie will probably feel disappointed and that this movie is very much the same but fans of DC or the DCEU will more than likely enjoy this film over the original. I really like the way that they included more story and scenes for characters like Cyborg and Flash. I feel that they definitely helped in fleshing out their characters who got the short end of the stick the first time around and since their characters didn't have their own stand alone movies. I also feel they fixed the way Wonder Woman was portrayed and the tension between her and Batman in the movie. I know I could bring up more points here in this part of the review and although the movie was released in 2017 and most people have seen it already, I don't want to spoil it for those who might not have seen it and their first time is going to be this version. So with that being said I'll save the rest for the spoiler review section. And now for my score/rating, I'd have to say that this movie still had a lot of issues like unnecessary scenes and a long run time and some of them stick out like a sore thumb but I really liked it and say that this was a great movie, I'm probably a little bias because I generally enjoy comic book movies and like DC as well but I give it a 8/10. And this movie gets my "Must See Seal of Approval" but only if you are a fan of DC, the DC movies or film in general and have what it takes to sit through a 4 hour movie. Also I think it's worth getting a subscription to HBOMax, if only for 1 month at the price of $15 a month because if you sign up now you'll also be able to enjoy all the other content; plus you'll be able to see Godzilla vs Kong when it's released on March 31st and Mortal Kombat on April 16th.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was great. At 4 hours it was a monster of a film to get through but I'm definitely glad I watched it because it was way better than the first one that came out in theaters. One of the biggest reasons I think I liked it too was that it was rated R instead of PG-13 which is why we hear Batman and Cyborg drop F-bombs in the movie and why there is significantly more violence and bloodshed shown. The beginning was also different and had a different feel to it right away because in the original it had the memorial for Superman and in this one it doesn't. One thing that I didn't care for and thought was really annoying was how the movie wasn't widescreen but the 4:3 ratio but luckily I have a setting on my tv to change it to widescreen and I think that helped a lot. I know the composer was also changed from the original which I think was better but hard to say but the music definitely fit better. A big change was how the movie felt like it had less humor and really felt darker in tone. I think that at 4 hours long though they really added back or too many additional scenes that didn't need to be there and were completely unnecessary. The part after Bruce Wayne tries to recruit Aquaman and the Swedish or Norwegian girls sing that song was pretty unnecessary and could have been taken out as well as when Wonder Woman goes to the fire arrow place of the Amazons and walks down the stairs to look at the ancient murals. I liked how Bruce Wayne/Batman had more scenes with Alfred Pennyworth. The greatest addition to this movie in my opinion were the additional scenes for Cyborg's story arc and for Flash. These really helped flesh out their characters and do them justice especially for them not having had their own individual movies before this movie of forming the Justice League. I like how Flash saved Iris in that one scene in front of the pet shop. The flashbacks for Cyborg were really cool too and how they showed more of his Mom that we never got to see humanized him a lot more. One of my favorite things that they changed was black suit Superman, that was awesome that they added that, straight out of the comics. I liked how they showed more action scenes of Wonder Woman especially the extended version of her fighting off the terrorists in the museum or wherever it was they went to blow up the kids. I also liked how they changed the scenes of Batman and her and instead made it more about the team and them together. Another thing I really liked was how they showed Willem Dafoe's character Vulko and how he talked to Aquaman. That was one thing that really bothered me about the original was how Mera and Aquaman acted like they knew each other already but in Aquaman they barely met for the first time so it just really threw me off. That and how did he know to go to Atlantis right when Steppenwolf was about to attack. It also bothered me how the Amazons had such an epic battle against Steppenwolf to defend him taking the mother box and the Atlanteans didn't even put up a fight. With this correction they added the dialogue that Aquaman's brother Orm (Ocean Master) was already starting to make moves to take over the other kingdoms that he needed all his soldiers and wouldn't spare any to protect the mother box. I had mixed feelings about Steppenwolf's redesign but I think ultimately it was a good thing and you were able to see his motivations better and think he came out more of a badass and better bad guy. It was cool to see him communicate using the mother boxes and talk to Darkseid's other henchmen Desaad. One thing I really didn't like was how they did Darkseid dirty and showed him lose in the past instead of how it was Steppenwolf who lost in the original to the combined armies of Amazons, Greek Gods, humans and a Green Lantern. They didn't even show him use his Omega beams against them but he did use it against the Atlanteans in a vision of the future that Cyborg sees and it was awesome. I felt they watered down Darkseid from how hardcore he's supposed to be in the comics and cartoons, etc... I liked how in the end they showed how he had Desaad with him and Granny Goodness with him on the other side of the boom tube. I really didn't like how they had this whole thing about Darkseid not remembering which planet the mother boxes were on or where he had seen the "anti-life equation". It doesn't make sense to me that he would forget the planet where he got his ass kicked and almost died or at least was defeated. I heard a theory that maybe he didn't forget he just didn't want his followers to know he suffered a defeat and didn't let them know or killed everyone who knew but then it also didn't make sense that Steppenwolf remembered. It also never explained in this version how or why Steppenwolf fell out of favor with Darkseid and why he was trying so desperately to please him and his whole debt of having to conquer 100,000 worlds. I think this movie could have been cut down to 3 hours and been just as good, and think that 4 hours was a bit too much and that's considering 10% is in slow motion scenes (that's 24 minutes give or take). To me it looks like the success of this version of the movie could possibly generate enough buzz to get a sequel but Zack Snyder has already stated that he more than likely wouldn't come back to make it. As I said above I really dug this version and probably am a little biased and should maybe give it a point lower than what I scored/rated it but I give it a 8/10 and it get's my "Must See Seal of Approval".
https://youtu.be/EvpnLXHBYZU
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was great. At 4 hours it was a monster of a film to get through but I'm definitely glad I watched it because it was way better than the first one that came out in theaters. One of the biggest reasons I think I liked it too was that it was rated R instead of PG-13 which is why we hear Batman and Cyborg drop F-bombs in the movie and why there is significantly more violence and bloodshed shown. The beginning was also different and had a different feel to it right away because in the original it had the memorial for Superman and in this one it doesn't. One thing that I didn't care for and thought was really annoying was how the movie wasn't widescreen but the 4:3 ratio but luckily I have a setting on my tv to change it to widescreen and I think that helped a lot. I know the composer was also changed from the original which I think was better but hard to say but the music definitely fit better. A big change was how the movie felt like it had less humor and really felt darker in tone. I think that at 4 hours long though they really added back or too many additional scenes that didn't need to be there and were completely unnecessary. The part after Bruce Wayne tries to recruit Aquaman and the Swedish or Norwegian girls sing that song was pretty unnecessary and could have been taken out as well as when Wonder Woman goes to the fire arrow place of the Amazons and walks down the stairs to look at the ancient murals. I liked how Bruce Wayne/Batman had more scenes with Alfred Pennyworth. The greatest addition to this movie in my opinion were the additional scenes for Cyborg's story arc and for Flash. These really helped flesh out their characters and do them justice especially for them not having had their own individual movies before this movie of forming the Justice League. I like how Flash saved Iris in that one scene in front of the pet shop. The flashbacks for Cyborg were really cool too and how they showed more of his Mom that we never got to see humanized him a lot more. One of my favorite things that they changed was black suit Superman, that was awesome that they added that, straight out of the comics. I liked how they showed more action scenes of Wonder Woman especially the extended version of her fighting off the terrorists in the museum or wherever it was they went to blow up the kids. I also liked how they changed the scenes of Batman and her and instead made it more about the team and them together. Another thing I really liked was how they showed Willem Dafoe's character Vulko and how he talked to Aquaman. That was one thing that really bothered me about the original was how Mera and Aquaman acted like they knew each other already but in Aquaman they barely met for the first time so it just really threw me off. That and how did he know to go to Atlantis right when Steppenwolf was about to attack. It also bothered me how the Amazons had such an epic battle against Steppenwolf to defend him taking the mother box and the Atlanteans didn't even put up a fight. With this correction they added the dialogue that Aquaman's brother Orm (Ocean Master) was already starting to make moves to take over the other kingdoms that he needed all his soldiers and wouldn't spare any to protect the mother box. I had mixed feelings about Steppenwolf's redesign but I think ultimately it was a good thing and you were able to see his motivations better and think he came out more of a badass and better bad guy. It was cool to see him communicate using the mother boxes and talk to Darkseid's other henchmen Desaad. One thing I really didn't like was how they did Darkseid dirty and showed him lose in the past instead of how it was Steppenwolf who lost in the original to the combined armies of Amazons, Greek Gods, humans and a Green Lantern. They didn't even show him use his Omega beams against them but he did use it against the Atlanteans in a vision of the future that Cyborg sees and it was awesome. I felt they watered down Darkseid from how hardcore he's supposed to be in the comics and cartoons, etc... I liked how in the end they showed how he had Desaad with him and Granny Goodness with him on the other side of the boom tube. I really didn't like how they had this whole thing about Darkseid not remembering which planet the mother boxes were on or where he had seen the "anti-life equation". It doesn't make sense to me that he would forget the planet where he got his ass kicked and almost died or at least was defeated. I heard a theory that maybe he didn't forget he just didn't want his followers to know he suffered a defeat and didn't let them know or killed everyone who knew but then it also didn't make sense that Steppenwolf remembered. It also never explained in this version how or why Steppenwolf fell out of favor with Darkseid and why he was trying so desperately to please him and his whole debt of having to conquer 100,000 worlds. I think this movie could have been cut down to 3 hours and been just as good, and think that 4 hours was a bit too much and that's considering 10% is in slow motion scenes (that's 24 minutes give or take). To me it looks like the success of this version of the movie could possibly generate enough buzz to get a sequel but Zack Snyder has already stated that he more than likely wouldn't come back to make it. As I said above I really dug this version and probably am a little biased and should maybe give it a point lower than what I scored/rated it but I give it a 8/10 and it get's my "Must See Seal of Approval".
https://youtu.be/EvpnLXHBYZU
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Oct 30, 2017 (Updated Oct 30, 2017)
Amazing visuals (2 more)
Witty dialogue
Surprise appearances
Inconsistent tone (2 more)
Anti climax
Wasted villain
The Worst Avenger's Best Movie
Contains spoilers, click to show
After seeing Thor: Ragnarok, I feel like the filmmakers were so paranoid about not churning out another formulaic, checklist of a Marvel movie that they chucked a whole bunch of disparate ideas into this mixing pot of a film and hoped that some of it would work. To some extent they were right; some of it does work, but some of it really doesn't. The stuff that doesn't work would probably work okay in a separate movie, but here it just provides a lack of cohesion and brings a jolting change of tone to many of the film's scenes.
Let me elaborate on what I mean and there will be spoilers from this point on. This movie should have been at least three different movies:
There should have been a movie about Hela's return to Asgard, showing her recruiting Skurge and raising her army of the dead and showing Thor and Loki being forced to put their differences aside and having to work together to defeat their more powerful, evil sister.
There should have been another movie about Thor ending up on Sakaar and having to battle Hulk and other competitors and eventually starting an uprising against the Grandmaster.
Then there should have been a third movie about Ragnarok and striving to prevent that event from occurring and defeating Surtur.
The plot elements of Ragnarok could have been split into three movies and it would mean that certain characters wouldn't have been wasted and that the big events that take place would have had more weight and gravitas to them, instead of just being brushed off in favour of getting to the next punch-line.
For example, Odin dies in this film and Thor and Loki deal with it and move on in a matter of seconds. There are no emotional repercussions whatsoever. Another example is the Warriors Three appearing in a single scene, having no dialogue and being killed in a matter of seconds of being onscreen. They attempt a character arc with Skurge, but again Karl Urban is onscreen for such a small amount of time that no resolution is felt following his sacrifice at the end of the movie. As soon as Cate Blanchett starts to show some potential as a memorable Marvel villain, the movie cuts away to yet another scene of Hulk and Thor bantering on Sakaar. Idris Elba is wasted too, having barely any dialogue and a very dull subplot. Jeff Goldblum is used purely as a gimmick and again is wasted by not having anywhere near enough screen time. I normally like seeing Tessa Thompson in things, but even she phoned it in here, with her accent taking on multiple different tones and dialects from scene to scene. Then, at the end of the movie, it is like the filmmakers suddenly remembered, 'oh that's right we need to conclude that Ragnarok subplot that we started at the beginning of the movie.' You know the FU***NG TITLE OF THE MOVIE. And so that gets tacked on at the end to sort of bring a conclusion to all of the other multiple subplots and lazily wrap up the movie.
The sheer amount of ideas that they attempted to incorporate here, makes so many elements of the movie's plot feel underdeveloped and although most of these separate parts could have worked if they were split up and fleshed out, here they all just end up falling flat by the end of the movie making the film feel anti-climatic as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, there is also a lot here that works too. I thought the cameos from Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth and Sam Neill was awesome. I liked the Doctor Strange appearance. I like how they had Thor lose his eye and I especially like how they managed to keep that out of all of the trailer and marketing. The trailers did ruin some things though, if we didn't already know that Mjolnir was going to get destroyed through seeing the trailers, it would have had more of an impact and all the talk about the vicious rival that Thor would have to face in the gladiator ring would have been way more effective if we didn't already know that it was going to be the Hulk.
Let's end things on a high note, the visuals were spectacular and this movie is worth going to see in theatres just for this alone. The CGI was incredible and the soundtrack was pretty great too. Overall this is a fun movie, but if like me you have been invested in these characters for the last five years, to see some of them go out with a whimper and some long term story arcs come to a disappointing conclusion, is unsatisfying to say the least.
Let me elaborate on what I mean and there will be spoilers from this point on. This movie should have been at least three different movies:
There should have been a movie about Hela's return to Asgard, showing her recruiting Skurge and raising her army of the dead and showing Thor and Loki being forced to put their differences aside and having to work together to defeat their more powerful, evil sister.
There should have been another movie about Thor ending up on Sakaar and having to battle Hulk and other competitors and eventually starting an uprising against the Grandmaster.
Then there should have been a third movie about Ragnarok and striving to prevent that event from occurring and defeating Surtur.
The plot elements of Ragnarok could have been split into three movies and it would mean that certain characters wouldn't have been wasted and that the big events that take place would have had more weight and gravitas to them, instead of just being brushed off in favour of getting to the next punch-line.
For example, Odin dies in this film and Thor and Loki deal with it and move on in a matter of seconds. There are no emotional repercussions whatsoever. Another example is the Warriors Three appearing in a single scene, having no dialogue and being killed in a matter of seconds of being onscreen. They attempt a character arc with Skurge, but again Karl Urban is onscreen for such a small amount of time that no resolution is felt following his sacrifice at the end of the movie. As soon as Cate Blanchett starts to show some potential as a memorable Marvel villain, the movie cuts away to yet another scene of Hulk and Thor bantering on Sakaar. Idris Elba is wasted too, having barely any dialogue and a very dull subplot. Jeff Goldblum is used purely as a gimmick and again is wasted by not having anywhere near enough screen time. I normally like seeing Tessa Thompson in things, but even she phoned it in here, with her accent taking on multiple different tones and dialects from scene to scene. Then, at the end of the movie, it is like the filmmakers suddenly remembered, 'oh that's right we need to conclude that Ragnarok subplot that we started at the beginning of the movie.' You know the FU***NG TITLE OF THE MOVIE. And so that gets tacked on at the end to sort of bring a conclusion to all of the other multiple subplots and lazily wrap up the movie.
The sheer amount of ideas that they attempted to incorporate here, makes so many elements of the movie's plot feel underdeveloped and although most of these separate parts could have worked if they were split up and fleshed out, here they all just end up falling flat by the end of the movie making the film feel anti-climatic as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, there is also a lot here that works too. I thought the cameos from Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth and Sam Neill was awesome. I liked the Doctor Strange appearance. I like how they had Thor lose his eye and I especially like how they managed to keep that out of all of the trailer and marketing. The trailers did ruin some things though, if we didn't already know that Mjolnir was going to get destroyed through seeing the trailers, it would have had more of an impact and all the talk about the vicious rival that Thor would have to face in the gladiator ring would have been way more effective if we didn't already know that it was going to be the Hulk.
Let's end things on a high note, the visuals were spectacular and this movie is worth going to see in theatres just for this alone. The CGI was incredible and the soundtrack was pretty great too. Overall this is a fun movie, but if like me you have been invested in these characters for the last five years, to see some of them go out with a whimper and some long term story arcs come to a disappointing conclusion, is unsatisfying to say the least.