Search
Age of Anger: A History of the Present
Book
'The kind of vision the world needs right now...Pankaj Mishra shouldn't stop thinking' Christopher...
It took me a bit to get into Trust, but I’m glad I persevered, and that I went back and read the synopsis!
Trust is made up of four narratives about the same man. The first is a book written by Harold Vanner called ‘Bonds’. It tells the story of tycoon Benjamin Rask in the 1920’s and his role in the 1929 crash. It’s also about his wife, Helen, her love of the Arts, how she descends into mental illness and dies in a European asylum.
The second story is comprised of the notes that Andrew Revel, a Wall Street banker and tycoon, makes in order to write his autobiography. His wife Mildred also features, and her death from cancer, also in a treatment centre in Europe.
The third is written by Ida Partenza (my favourite part), where she is looking back on the time that she worked for Revel, ghost-writing his biography. She clearly intensely dislikes her employer, mainly because he lies throughout his storytelling, and is quite upfront about doing it. He’s also aware of her father being a political refugee from Italy, an anarchist, and there’s an underlying menace.
And the final part are the notes and diaries that Ida finds in the ‘present’ day written by Mildred, leading up to her death. They reveal the secrets that her husband would rather not know. Why these are still in a library that can be accessed by the public isn’t known, but the handwriting is pretty indecipherable, so that may well be the reason.
Obviously the first story is about the man in the last three, and we are asked to trust that the man who wrote the first is lying - and therefore trust that Andrew Revel is telling the truth. Clearly he isn’t. His wife’s notes back that up. Revel is a manipulative man, who doesn’t hesitate to ruin other people’s lives in order to protect his reputation.
I read this whole novel with horrified fascination. It’s a good one!
Trust is made up of four narratives about the same man. The first is a book written by Harold Vanner called ‘Bonds’. It tells the story of tycoon Benjamin Rask in the 1920’s and his role in the 1929 crash. It’s also about his wife, Helen, her love of the Arts, how she descends into mental illness and dies in a European asylum.
The second story is comprised of the notes that Andrew Revel, a Wall Street banker and tycoon, makes in order to write his autobiography. His wife Mildred also features, and her death from cancer, also in a treatment centre in Europe.
The third is written by Ida Partenza (my favourite part), where she is looking back on the time that she worked for Revel, ghost-writing his biography. She clearly intensely dislikes her employer, mainly because he lies throughout his storytelling, and is quite upfront about doing it. He’s also aware of her father being a political refugee from Italy, an anarchist, and there’s an underlying menace.
And the final part are the notes and diaries that Ida finds in the ‘present’ day written by Mildred, leading up to her death. They reveal the secrets that her husband would rather not know. Why these are still in a library that can be accessed by the public isn’t known, but the handwriting is pretty indecipherable, so that may well be the reason.
Obviously the first story is about the man in the last three, and we are asked to trust that the man who wrote the first is lying - and therefore trust that Andrew Revel is telling the truth. Clearly he isn’t. His wife’s notes back that up. Revel is a manipulative man, who doesn’t hesitate to ruin other people’s lives in order to protect his reputation.
I read this whole novel with horrified fascination. It’s a good one!
The Art of Joy
Anne Milano Appel and Goliarda Sapienza
Book
Goliarda Sapienza's The Art of Joy was written over a nine year span, from 1967 to 1976. At the time...
The Altruistic Brain: How We are Naturally Good
Book
Since the beginning of recorded history, law and religion have provided "rules" that define good...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is back and on a mission to stop a terrorist group, known as The Apostles, from acquiring three uranium cores that they will use to create nuclear devices. Hunt and his Impossible Mission Force (IMF) team (Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames) set up a black market deal to purchase the cores. But during the buy Luther (Rhames) is taken hostage. In a rescue attempt Hunt and Benji (Pegg) let the cores slip into the hands of The Apostles. Due to Hunt’s choice to save his team over protecting the cores has put the world in danger of nuclear attack. Luckily, the head of the IMF, Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin, has received intelligence that an arms dealer known as the White Widow (Vanessa Kirby) is looking to broker a deal for the cores. The only problem is the price is not money but the breaking out of the former IMF nemesis and anarchist Solomon Lane (Sean Harris). Hunt, eager for redemption, agrees to once again track down the cores. But the CIA want to make sure that this time the job is done right, so Director Erica Sloan (Angela Bassett) demands her top cleaner August Walker (Henry Cavill) accompany. With the help of the CIA they will try and break Lane out of prison and save the world from a catastrophic nuclear attack.
This film, the sixth installment of the Mission: Impossible film franchise, is a true action packed summer blockbuster. Written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie (Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, Jack Reacher) this film has the action and suspense that viewers have come to expect from these films. Cruise, who famously does all of his own stunts, puts in a stellar performance, as does the rest of the cast. Rebecca Ferguson, as assassin and Hunt love interest Ilsa Faust, has good on screen chemistry with Cruise. The overall vision of the film is big and everything is well shot. One example is seamlessly shot motorcycle/car chase through Paris streets, with narrow misses, extreme speeds and iconic scenery. Along with all of the action you get the sometimes corny dialog that you can expect. As long as you expect it, and maybe embrace it, you will definitely enjoy the film. At 2 hours and 27 minutes the runtime might seem long but the pace is really good so it does not feel that long.
This is the best action film of the summer I have seen so far. The attention to detail in the action scenes really shows through. The twists and turns of the story keep you as engaged as the jaw dropping stunts. Maybe not the film for everyone but a great action/spy movie. For me it is definitely a film that should be seen in theaters, maybe more than once.
This film, the sixth installment of the Mission: Impossible film franchise, is a true action packed summer blockbuster. Written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie (Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, Jack Reacher) this film has the action and suspense that viewers have come to expect from these films. Cruise, who famously does all of his own stunts, puts in a stellar performance, as does the rest of the cast. Rebecca Ferguson, as assassin and Hunt love interest Ilsa Faust, has good on screen chemistry with Cruise. The overall vision of the film is big and everything is well shot. One example is seamlessly shot motorcycle/car chase through Paris streets, with narrow misses, extreme speeds and iconic scenery. Along with all of the action you get the sometimes corny dialog that you can expect. As long as you expect it, and maybe embrace it, you will definitely enjoy the film. At 2 hours and 27 minutes the runtime might seem long but the pace is really good so it does not feel that long.
This is the best action film of the summer I have seen so far. The attention to detail in the action scenes really shows through. The twists and turns of the story keep you as engaged as the jaw dropping stunts. Maybe not the film for everyone but a great action/spy movie. For me it is definitely a film that should be seen in theaters, maybe more than once.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Neptune's Tears (Timedance, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted on <a title="Neptune's Tears by Susan Waggoner" href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/05/arc-review-neptunes-tears-by-susan-waggoner.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>.
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste.
<i><b>Disclaimer:</b> I received an ARC copy of the book from the publisher via Netgalley. My review is not influenced in any way.</i>
In a futuristic London, England, seventeen-year-old Zee McAdams is an empath a psychic healer working at the Royal London Hospital. As an empath, she can't afford distractions getting in the way of her career, such as falling in love or even reading (oh, wait, reading? *squeak of horror*). But then she meets a cute patient who pretty much breaks down her wall of calm that she has earned throughout her career. During that time of anarchist bombings, Zee is also experiencing other psychic abilities relating to the bombings.
As soon as the word "alien" appeared, I pretty much freaked out. I assumed it was going to be another I Am Number Four type of alien story where a mortal girl falls in love with super hot alien dude and it's forbidden but the alien dude hasn't told her the truth yet until something totally out of the ordinary happens and he has to tell her the truth (that was a mouthful... I think). Then when she finds out the truth, she doesn't freak out. It's pretty much, "Oh. Okay. You're an alien. Cool. I still like you, and we'll fight to the end, side by side." Not that I mind, really, but it's just the very fact that the mortal doesn't even have the slightest bit of panic.
In this case, it's not exactly that type of alien story. It finally (FINALLY!) happens that someone actually seemed to panic and run off freaking out (er, more like a what-just-happened-I-don't-think-I-heard-right type of way) about an alien race merging with us fellow Earthlings. I was so happy to read that, having a slice of Dauntless cake right then and there would have been perfect timing.
Zee's friend, Rani, is a fashionista, and a romantic. I find her to be a caring and supportive friend to Zee when she needs it. I also find that she's caring due to what she does for Zee near the end. I find it really sad, since Rani is actually one of my favorite characters in Neptune's Tears.
Waggoner creates an amazingly exciting futuristic world with a lot of new technologies. The very fact that email is being used with a stick and that there's an interactive theater along with many others is truly amazing. I would love to live in that type of world and experience it one day.
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste.
<i><b>Disclaimer:</b> I received an ARC copy of the book from the publisher via Netgalley. My review is not influenced in any way.</i>
In a futuristic London, England, seventeen-year-old Zee McAdams is an empath a psychic healer working at the Royal London Hospital. As an empath, she can't afford distractions getting in the way of her career, such as falling in love or even reading (oh, wait, reading? *squeak of horror*). But then she meets a cute patient who pretty much breaks down her wall of calm that she has earned throughout her career. During that time of anarchist bombings, Zee is also experiencing other psychic abilities relating to the bombings.
As soon as the word "alien" appeared, I pretty much freaked out. I assumed it was going to be another I Am Number Four type of alien story where a mortal girl falls in love with super hot alien dude and it's forbidden but the alien dude hasn't told her the truth yet until something totally out of the ordinary happens and he has to tell her the truth (that was a mouthful... I think). Then when she finds out the truth, she doesn't freak out. It's pretty much, "Oh. Okay. You're an alien. Cool. I still like you, and we'll fight to the end, side by side." Not that I mind, really, but it's just the very fact that the mortal doesn't even have the slightest bit of panic.
In this case, it's not exactly that type of alien story. It finally (FINALLY!) happens that someone actually seemed to panic and run off freaking out (er, more like a what-just-happened-I-don't-think-I-heard-right type of way) about an alien race merging with us fellow Earthlings. I was so happy to read that, having a slice of Dauntless cake right then and there would have been perfect timing.
Zee's friend, Rani, is a fashionista, and a romantic. I find her to be a caring and supportive friend to Zee when she needs it. I also find that she's caring due to what she does for Zee near the end. I find it really sad, since Rani is actually one of my favorite characters in Neptune's Tears.
Waggoner creates an amazingly exciting futuristic world with a lot of new technologies. The very fact that email is being used with a stick and that there's an interactive theater along with many others is truly amazing. I would love to live in that type of world and experience it one day.
The Poetry Deal
Book
"The Poetry Deal: San Francisco Poet Laureate Series No. 5 gives us di Prima's vision as she looks...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman Begins‘ ending was a brilliant nod towards the things that were to come, as Gary Oldman’s, newly promoted Lieutenant Jim Gordon flashes The Joker’s calling card, Batman’s revival had now well and truly begun. A film with lesser known villains was about to retread more familiar ground with the introduction of The Joker and Harvey Dent/Two Face.
But this was Christopher Nolan’s more grounded take on the superhero, and his villains needed to be much more than the hammy caricatures that we’d seen before. The late Heath Ledger made the role of The Joker his own in ways that no-one could have imagined. This was a dark, evil and terrifying take on the character with an evil sense if humour but he is in keeping with the villain that we know so well.
The origins of the Dark Knight were covered expertly in the first film, and now it is time to take that story one step further, so consequently this is now more about crime in Gotham City. The criminal underworld is now in turmoil as Batman, Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent are leaning on them, but when things turn ugly, they turn ugly!
The beauty of this film is that it takes off pretty much from where the first left off, but the tone has changed a bit. This owes a lot to Michael Mann’s, Heat, and focuses much more on Wayne/Batman’s attempts to rid the city of crime, whilst his opposite and nemesis, The Joker, is proving himself to be nothing less than a pure anarchist, unreasonable and nonnegotiable.
Is this better than Batman Begins? Yes, but only fractionally. It’s slightly tighter and more complex, with every set piece seamlessly moving on to the next complex sequence, where the grand plan is rarely what it appears to be. The film’s narrative is deceptive, playing with its characters and the audience alike. This is film-making at it’s very best. The perfect blend of grand direction, passionate character development and performance and writing, with a narrative and structure designed to engage and enthrall the viewer without patronising or insulting their intelligence.
I believe that this film is a masterpiece and genuinely the best movie of this genre ever made. There are so many examples of how to do a comic adaptation and many great examples to boot, but I feel that this blends them all so well. It’s a franchise film without falling into the trap of being part of franchise. Each film is a real film its own right, with a plot, arch and tone.
The narrative continues, but the feel evolves to suit the film, and though Begins and Knight seamlessly work together, either could also be taken as a film by themselves, each with the integrity to hold their own. But as a franchise movie, it is still littered with nods to the future, or in some cases, more subtle entries into the lore.
Take Mr. Reese for example. This was a name used by The Riddler and many suspected at the time that it was linked to the third film, but so far, there’s no talk of The Riddler’s involvement, in fact there has been an outright denial. But I believe that in effect, he has already appeared, though in a much muted manner. Mr. Coleman Reese, or Mister-REES (mysteries anyone?), threatens to out Wayne as Batman but is stopped by The Joker, but maybe the fact that he worked for a consultancy employed by Wayne Enterprises and threatened Wayne with blackmail etc… was a mild acknowledgment of The Riddler’s character.
This is what we’re talking about when we look at Nolan’s work. He spares nothing, but delivers the film in ways that doesn’t always conform to your expectations. And don’t forget th line about the Cats line either…
Overall, The Dark Knight is the epitome of the reboot genre, taking so much from the original source without copying, but bringing a genuinely deep, thoughtful and emotional take on a comic book character who dresses like a bat and solves crime… May the genius of Christopher Nolan and his team carry on for years to come, but I do fear that he’s heading for a fall, purely on the basis that no-one can produce films of this outstanding quality for ever… can they?
But this was Christopher Nolan’s more grounded take on the superhero, and his villains needed to be much more than the hammy caricatures that we’d seen before. The late Heath Ledger made the role of The Joker his own in ways that no-one could have imagined. This was a dark, evil and terrifying take on the character with an evil sense if humour but he is in keeping with the villain that we know so well.
The origins of the Dark Knight were covered expertly in the first film, and now it is time to take that story one step further, so consequently this is now more about crime in Gotham City. The criminal underworld is now in turmoil as Batman, Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent are leaning on them, but when things turn ugly, they turn ugly!
The beauty of this film is that it takes off pretty much from where the first left off, but the tone has changed a bit. This owes a lot to Michael Mann’s, Heat, and focuses much more on Wayne/Batman’s attempts to rid the city of crime, whilst his opposite and nemesis, The Joker, is proving himself to be nothing less than a pure anarchist, unreasonable and nonnegotiable.
Is this better than Batman Begins? Yes, but only fractionally. It’s slightly tighter and more complex, with every set piece seamlessly moving on to the next complex sequence, where the grand plan is rarely what it appears to be. The film’s narrative is deceptive, playing with its characters and the audience alike. This is film-making at it’s very best. The perfect blend of grand direction, passionate character development and performance and writing, with a narrative and structure designed to engage and enthrall the viewer without patronising or insulting their intelligence.
I believe that this film is a masterpiece and genuinely the best movie of this genre ever made. There are so many examples of how to do a comic adaptation and many great examples to boot, but I feel that this blends them all so well. It’s a franchise film without falling into the trap of being part of franchise. Each film is a real film its own right, with a plot, arch and tone.
The narrative continues, but the feel evolves to suit the film, and though Begins and Knight seamlessly work together, either could also be taken as a film by themselves, each with the integrity to hold their own. But as a franchise movie, it is still littered with nods to the future, or in some cases, more subtle entries into the lore.
Take Mr. Reese for example. This was a name used by The Riddler and many suspected at the time that it was linked to the third film, but so far, there’s no talk of The Riddler’s involvement, in fact there has been an outright denial. But I believe that in effect, he has already appeared, though in a much muted manner. Mr. Coleman Reese, or Mister-REES (mysteries anyone?), threatens to out Wayne as Batman but is stopped by The Joker, but maybe the fact that he worked for a consultancy employed by Wayne Enterprises and threatened Wayne with blackmail etc… was a mild acknowledgment of The Riddler’s character.
This is what we’re talking about when we look at Nolan’s work. He spares nothing, but delivers the film in ways that doesn’t always conform to your expectations. And don’t forget th line about the Cats line either…
Overall, The Dark Knight is the epitome of the reboot genre, taking so much from the original source without copying, but bringing a genuinely deep, thoughtful and emotional take on a comic book character who dresses like a bat and solves crime… May the genius of Christopher Nolan and his team carry on for years to come, but I do fear that he’s heading for a fall, purely on the basis that no-one can produce films of this outstanding quality for ever… can they?