Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated This Secret We're Keeping in Books
May 25, 2017
Well-Written
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules? This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. This Secret We’re Keeping is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
This Secret We’re Keeping causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, This Secret We’re Keeping can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, This Secret We’re Keeping was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. This Secret We’re Keeping is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules? This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. This Secret We’re Keeping is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
This Secret We’re Keeping causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, This Secret We’re Keeping can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, This Secret We’re Keeping was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. This Secret We’re Keeping is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
May 18, 2018 (Updated May 18, 2018)
Some razor sharp lines of dialogue (2 more)
Clever direction
Extremely funny from start to finish
The Merc With A Mouth Is Back
Contains spoilers, click to show
Deadpool 2 is the kind of sequel that knows exactly what it is. It doesn't pretend to be anything original and it's main focus is getting a laugh out of it's audience over anything else. It succeeds greatly at this with the film being hilarious throughout and it comes very close to being as funny as it's predecessor, it just doesn't quite get there. I think that the main reason for this is because it chooses to focus more on a story than the last one did and through that, the humour loses some of the momentum that it builds up.
Okay, spoilers from here on out. If you haven't seen it yet, why the hell not? Go to the cinema right now.
Although the first movies laughs have better momentum, an argument could be made for this movie's individual lines being funnier. My particular favourite was the jab Deadpool has at his creator Rob Liefeld for not being able to draw feet properly in his comics.
I loved how they chose to show off Domino's powers. Her power of 'luck,' could have came across really lame onscreen, but David Leitch's fantastic direction helped it to come across brilliantly. I also loved the cameos, from the room full of X-Men, to Brad Pitt as the Vanisher.
When they killed Vanessa at the start of the movie, I was disappointed as I was looking forward to seeing her character develop in this movie and I felt like just killing her off to give Deadpool motivation for his arc in the movie was pretty lazy. Then, they immediately rectified it with the hilarious Bond-esque opening title sequence. Then I thought that they were going to make Vanessa become Death, who is Deadpool's love interest in the comics because he has so many encounters with her, but at the end of the movie we see Deadpool going back in time to reverse her death from happening, which also sort of negates a lot of the emotional beats that the movie surprisingly managed to hit during it's finale.
The Juggernaught is the movie's surprise villain and while it is nice to see him in his comic accurate form, the CGI used is really cartoony and even hard to swallow in a surreal superhero movie like this one.
However, that's not why anybody watches a Deadpool movie. If I was looking for deep, meaningful character arcs and realistic CGI, there are a ton of other movies for that. Deadpool is there to make you laugh and there is no doubt that it succeeds at that.
There are some comedic moments that feel oddly dated, like the constant references to dubstep for example and I feel like they missed a trick not bringing up the fact that the director was swapped out during the film's production or the real life scandals involving TJ Miller, but every joke earns at least a chuckle, which justifies it's place in the film. It may not as quite as novel because we have seen it before, but there are plenty of scenes in here that will have you laughing out loud in the cinema and fans of the character will not be disappointed.
Okay, spoilers from here on out. If you haven't seen it yet, why the hell not? Go to the cinema right now.
Although the first movies laughs have better momentum, an argument could be made for this movie's individual lines being funnier. My particular favourite was the jab Deadpool has at his creator Rob Liefeld for not being able to draw feet properly in his comics.
I loved how they chose to show off Domino's powers. Her power of 'luck,' could have came across really lame onscreen, but David Leitch's fantastic direction helped it to come across brilliantly. I also loved the cameos, from the room full of X-Men, to Brad Pitt as the Vanisher.
When they killed Vanessa at the start of the movie, I was disappointed as I was looking forward to seeing her character develop in this movie and I felt like just killing her off to give Deadpool motivation for his arc in the movie was pretty lazy. Then, they immediately rectified it with the hilarious Bond-esque opening title sequence. Then I thought that they were going to make Vanessa become Death, who is Deadpool's love interest in the comics because he has so many encounters with her, but at the end of the movie we see Deadpool going back in time to reverse her death from happening, which also sort of negates a lot of the emotional beats that the movie surprisingly managed to hit during it's finale.
The Juggernaught is the movie's surprise villain and while it is nice to see him in his comic accurate form, the CGI used is really cartoony and even hard to swallow in a surreal superhero movie like this one.
However, that's not why anybody watches a Deadpool movie. If I was looking for deep, meaningful character arcs and realistic CGI, there are a ton of other movies for that. Deadpool is there to make you laugh and there is no doubt that it succeeds at that.
There are some comedic moments that feel oddly dated, like the constant references to dubstep for example and I feel like they missed a trick not bringing up the fact that the director was swapped out during the film's production or the real life scandals involving TJ Miller, but every joke earns at least a chuckle, which justifies it's place in the film. It may not as quite as novel because we have seen it before, but there are plenty of scenes in here that will have you laughing out loud in the cinema and fans of the character will not be disappointed.
Tamsin Clark (15 KP) rated Facebook in Apps
Jan 20, 2018
Ability to keep in touch (2 more)
Pages for groups and local business
Ability to add photos and movies
Messenger and Facebook separate apps (6 more)
Facebook pushes their agenda
Adverts and content montoring
Report system only acknowledges what it wants
Enables cyber bullying
Site changes harmed small business
'Fake news' is a thing.
How much fear would you like today?
I used to really enjoy using Facebook, but over the years I've watched the site and the app(s) sink further and further into the doldrums of commercialism and sly financial gain. It's now easier to be reported and banned for making a nonsensical sentence than it is for threatening to kill someone. Pictures of female nipples are immediately banned but pictures of people torturing animals aren't.
Business pages have to pay to be seen and if they make posts and don't pay for them, they find their reach grossly reduced. Certain news outlets are encouraged and bolstered while others are all but hidden, and the 'trending' news always shows the very worst of the worst stories. There is also a lot of this 'fake news' around, where articles will show up with stories that are entirely untrue but made to look real, which takes even more time to research than it does to read in the first place. I'd say another 50% of posts are clickbait too. Feeds have been altered over and over again to the point that they're now almost impossible to customise to see what YOU want to see and not what Facebook wants you to see. And all the while, each click you make, each comment you write is read by the site and used to customise adverts and content to you, whether you like it or not. Even in messenger.
When it comes to content, Facebook does provide a good amount. On a personal level, if you restricted your feed to ONLY people you know in person and they didn't join any groups or flood your feed with game updates, then it would be a fine site to use for actual social interaction. It's possible to upload multiple images and videos, use links to display pages, media or otherwise that are of interest. You can set up alerts too but beware of being inundated by a million alerts every moment. There is a messaging service too; if you use a browser then it's all on the same site but if you use the apps, you have to have a separate app for Facebook and messenger and they don't work together, even though the Facebook app has a messenger icon as part of its design. It takes up a LOT of room on a phone, especially if you don't have much to start with. Also, if you block someone on messenger (even for a laugh) it automatically unfriends you on Facebook, yet supposedly the two are not connected so go figure.
I recently stopped using the site. I have a profile still as I have a lot of images and life events that I want to keep but I now barely browse once a week. Every thread descended into an argument, too many people use it as a troll hub to release the tensions of their unhappy lives on others while avoiding all responsibility for it. It ended up a bad way to waste time and made my anxiety issues a lot worse too.
Business pages have to pay to be seen and if they make posts and don't pay for them, they find their reach grossly reduced. Certain news outlets are encouraged and bolstered while others are all but hidden, and the 'trending' news always shows the very worst of the worst stories. There is also a lot of this 'fake news' around, where articles will show up with stories that are entirely untrue but made to look real, which takes even more time to research than it does to read in the first place. I'd say another 50% of posts are clickbait too. Feeds have been altered over and over again to the point that they're now almost impossible to customise to see what YOU want to see and not what Facebook wants you to see. And all the while, each click you make, each comment you write is read by the site and used to customise adverts and content to you, whether you like it or not. Even in messenger.
When it comes to content, Facebook does provide a good amount. On a personal level, if you restricted your feed to ONLY people you know in person and they didn't join any groups or flood your feed with game updates, then it would be a fine site to use for actual social interaction. It's possible to upload multiple images and videos, use links to display pages, media or otherwise that are of interest. You can set up alerts too but beware of being inundated by a million alerts every moment. There is a messaging service too; if you use a browser then it's all on the same site but if you use the apps, you have to have a separate app for Facebook and messenger and they don't work together, even though the Facebook app has a messenger icon as part of its design. It takes up a LOT of room on a phone, especially if you don't have much to start with. Also, if you block someone on messenger (even for a laugh) it automatically unfriends you on Facebook, yet supposedly the two are not connected so go figure.
I recently stopped using the site. I have a profile still as I have a lot of images and life events that I want to keep but I now barely browse once a week. Every thread descended into an argument, too many people use it as a troll hub to release the tensions of their unhappy lives on others while avoiding all responsibility for it. It ended up a bad way to waste time and made my anxiety issues a lot worse too.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Woman in Cabin 10 in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Laura (Lo) Blackstock is excited to finally get the opportunity of her travel journalism career: a chance to cover the launch of a luxury cruise ship, the Aurora. The ship is headed to Norway, and Lo has the ability to mingle with a set of wealthy passengers and make some connections to jump-start her writing career. But before she even sets foot on the boat, Lo is reeling from a break-in at her apartment, which leaves her anxious, exhausted, and--through a series of unfortunate events--on the outs with her boyfriend, Jonah. Still, at first the Aurora seems gorgeous and luxurious, if a bit small for Lo's claustrophobia. But her first evening on board, after an evening of dining and drinking, Lo is awoken to the sound of an argument in cabin 10 next door, and she's convinced she sees a woman tossed overboard. But no one on the ship believes her, and the woman she knows she met earlier in cabin 10, when asking to borrow mascara, is gone--nowhere on the boat. Lo knows realistically this isn't possible: it's a small boat and people can't just disappear. But she also knows who she saw and what she saw. Is she going crazy? And is someone on the boat now out to get her?
This was an interesting and suspenseful thriller. I agree with the comparisons to an Agatha Christie novel: with the setting of the novel being a ship, you have a limited cast of characters (and suspects), which heightens some of the intrigue. Ware does an excellent job of setting the scene, and you can practically feel yourself trapped in this opulent yet slightly claustrophobic, endlessly rocking luxury cruise-liner. Lo is set up rather quickly as unreliable narrator: she's clearly anxious after her break-in, prone to drinking, and reeling from a lack of sleep. Therefore, from the outset, we're not sure if we can trust what we're reading or what seems to be unfolding on this ship. One of my favorite things about this novel is that it certainly keeps you guessing -- I was constantly coming up with (and discarding) various theories as I read, placing blame on a new character every few chapters. And, of course, always harboring that seed of doubt that Lo just made the entire thing up. While we hear entirely from Lo, Ware places a few newspaper stories at the end of each chapter, which just add to your doubt and confusion.
As for Lo, she's not the most enjoyable of main characters and due to our limited set of characters, we don't have many others, so most of the tale hinges on her. She's a bit annoying and whiny and prone to overthinking and bad decisions. She can get frustrating at times, to say the least. The story itself isn't really creepy or spooky, but it's definitely interesting and, as I said, keeps you guessing until nearly the very end. A few of the plot points seem a bit haphazard, as if things were just jammed together randomly into the story, but I suppose they all work together at the end.
Overall, this is certainly an engaging and suspenseful thriller. If you enjoy a fast-paced whodunnit, this one is for you. 3.5 stars.
This was an interesting and suspenseful thriller. I agree with the comparisons to an Agatha Christie novel: with the setting of the novel being a ship, you have a limited cast of characters (and suspects), which heightens some of the intrigue. Ware does an excellent job of setting the scene, and you can practically feel yourself trapped in this opulent yet slightly claustrophobic, endlessly rocking luxury cruise-liner. Lo is set up rather quickly as unreliable narrator: she's clearly anxious after her break-in, prone to drinking, and reeling from a lack of sleep. Therefore, from the outset, we're not sure if we can trust what we're reading or what seems to be unfolding on this ship. One of my favorite things about this novel is that it certainly keeps you guessing -- I was constantly coming up with (and discarding) various theories as I read, placing blame on a new character every few chapters. And, of course, always harboring that seed of doubt that Lo just made the entire thing up. While we hear entirely from Lo, Ware places a few newspaper stories at the end of each chapter, which just add to your doubt and confusion.
As for Lo, she's not the most enjoyable of main characters and due to our limited set of characters, we don't have many others, so most of the tale hinges on her. She's a bit annoying and whiny and prone to overthinking and bad decisions. She can get frustrating at times, to say the least. The story itself isn't really creepy or spooky, but it's definitely interesting and, as I said, keeps you guessing until nearly the very end. A few of the plot points seem a bit haphazard, as if things were just jammed together randomly into the story, but I suppose they all work together at the end.
Overall, this is certainly an engaging and suspenseful thriller. If you enjoy a fast-paced whodunnit, this one is for you. 3.5 stars.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated No More Than Mystic in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
No Less Than Mystic: A Story of Lenin and the Russian Revolution for a 21st Century Left</i> by John Medhurst is an in-depth historical and political insight to the truth about what really happened in Russia before, during and after the Bolshevik insurrection of October 1917. Beginning with the end of the Tsars rule and ending with Stalinism, Medhurst unearths the fact from the fiction, challenging the information the world has been led to believe.
As mentioned in Medhurst lengthy introduction, previous books on the subject are often biased and inaccurate. Swayed by political beliefs, authors and historians often pass judgement by using the information they have chosen to believe, dismissing anything that goes against their viewpoint. In this book, Medhurst filters through these false histories, preferring to cite from publications written at the time rather than those penned by people who did not witness the events between 1903 and 1921.
Medhurst’s narrative is more political than historical, often going off on tangents. In order to for the reader to obtain some sort of connection with the events described, the author contrasts them with more recent occurrences that readers may have observed or at least understand. These include the British miner’s strike, feminist movements, the Greek economy and a variety of other capitalist struggles.
The Russian revolution is a complex affair that cannot easily be condensed. As a result, <i>No More Than Mystic</i> exceeds 600 pages and covers every event, no matter how big or small, that contributed to the rise of USSR. Russia was a dangerous place to live during the 20th century, particularly when Leninism spiralled into Stalinism. However, Leninism was not all the history books make it out to be.
During GCSE History, one teacher led his class to believe that Lenin was good and Stalin was bad, however, the reality was much more complicated than that. Lenin was not the good guy that many painted him to be. Thousands died as a result of his policies from both execution and starvation. Yet, at the same time, Medhurst tries to point out the reasoning behind the ideas of the communist rulers, refusing to give a personal opinion without laying bare both sides of the argument.
Although this book is accurate and educational, it is not the easiest to sit down and read. Extensive chapters full of mind-numbing information detract from the comprehensive insightfulness of the content. Notwithstanding the fact that the inclusion of contrasting capitalist examples helps the reader to establish some form of familiar ground, the sudden changes in topic, location and time period are often confusing and hard to follow.
<i>No Less Than Mystic </i>is for the intellectual person with a great interest in 20th-century Russian history and communist affairs. Without any prior education on the topic, this book will not mean anything. It attempts to challenge the ingrained beliefs people have about what happened during the Bolshevik insurrection. Those who do not know anything will not benefit from the confronting enlightenment.
In all, <i>No Less Than Mystic</i> is a well-researched academic text that brings a fresh history of Lenin and the Russian Revolution. Those who want an unbiased truth need to read this book and be sceptical about any other on the topic. In order to form opinions, one must know the facts.
No Less Than Mystic: A Story of Lenin and the Russian Revolution for a 21st Century Left</i> by John Medhurst is an in-depth historical and political insight to the truth about what really happened in Russia before, during and after the Bolshevik insurrection of October 1917. Beginning with the end of the Tsars rule and ending with Stalinism, Medhurst unearths the fact from the fiction, challenging the information the world has been led to believe.
As mentioned in Medhurst lengthy introduction, previous books on the subject are often biased and inaccurate. Swayed by political beliefs, authors and historians often pass judgement by using the information they have chosen to believe, dismissing anything that goes against their viewpoint. In this book, Medhurst filters through these false histories, preferring to cite from publications written at the time rather than those penned by people who did not witness the events between 1903 and 1921.
Medhurst’s narrative is more political than historical, often going off on tangents. In order to for the reader to obtain some sort of connection with the events described, the author contrasts them with more recent occurrences that readers may have observed or at least understand. These include the British miner’s strike, feminist movements, the Greek economy and a variety of other capitalist struggles.
The Russian revolution is a complex affair that cannot easily be condensed. As a result, <i>No More Than Mystic</i> exceeds 600 pages and covers every event, no matter how big or small, that contributed to the rise of USSR. Russia was a dangerous place to live during the 20th century, particularly when Leninism spiralled into Stalinism. However, Leninism was not all the history books make it out to be.
During GCSE History, one teacher led his class to believe that Lenin was good and Stalin was bad, however, the reality was much more complicated than that. Lenin was not the good guy that many painted him to be. Thousands died as a result of his policies from both execution and starvation. Yet, at the same time, Medhurst tries to point out the reasoning behind the ideas of the communist rulers, refusing to give a personal opinion without laying bare both sides of the argument.
Although this book is accurate and educational, it is not the easiest to sit down and read. Extensive chapters full of mind-numbing information detract from the comprehensive insightfulness of the content. Notwithstanding the fact that the inclusion of contrasting capitalist examples helps the reader to establish some form of familiar ground, the sudden changes in topic, location and time period are often confusing and hard to follow.
<i>No Less Than Mystic </i>is for the intellectual person with a great interest in 20th-century Russian history and communist affairs. Without any prior education on the topic, this book will not mean anything. It attempts to challenge the ingrained beliefs people have about what happened during the Bolshevik insurrection. Those who do not know anything will not benefit from the confronting enlightenment.
In all, <i>No Less Than Mystic</i> is a well-researched academic text that brings a fresh history of Lenin and the Russian Revolution. Those who want an unbiased truth need to read this book and be sceptical about any other on the topic. In order to form opinions, one must know the facts.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Oct 19, 2018 (Updated Oct 19, 2018)
Bradley Cooper's direction (2 more)
Both lead performances
Great original songs
Better Than Expected
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have dragged my other half to see plenty of stuff recently that she has sat through because I wanted to see it, so I thought it was about time that I let her drag me to something that she fancied seeing. I'm pretty glad that she did.
I expected A Star Is Born to be full of cheesy dialogue and crappy pop songs and I didn't know what to expect from Bradley Cooper's first time in the director's chair. Thankfully, my uncertainty and doubt was proven wrong. This is an absolutely fantastic directorial debut from Cooper. There were several parts in the movie where it felt similar to a Clint Eastwood directed movie, the influence that Clint obviously had on Cooper when they worked together for American Sniper has clearly paid off here. The cinematography is brilliant throughout the film and he gets a lot out of his actors too.
Considering Cooper is an actor, he plays an exceptionally convincing rock star as Jackson Maine. His voice is phenomenal and if all of the guitar playing was done by him, then that was impressive also. Likewise, considering Lady Gaga's background is as a singer and not an actress, she did a pretty great job in this role as Ally - even if she is playing a character very similar to herself. Sam Elliot is also fantastic, (as he always is,) as Jack's older brother and I reckon could be in for an Oscar shout for best supporting role.
In order to talk about the main negative I had with the film, I am going to have to spoil the way that it ends. So SPOILERS from this point on, you have been warned.
I know that Jackson didn't commit suicide just because of what Ally's sleazy agent said to him at the end of the movie, but I only know that because I had to fill in the blanks myself. The way that the movie presents it, is as if the agent tells Jack that he's an embarrassment to Ally and that's what makes him want to hang himself, which to me isn't justification enough to have a character take their own life, especially a character like Jackson Maine. The argument could be made that it wasn't what the agent said that led to Jack's suicide, but because he said out loud the way that Jack sees himself. As a burden and embarrassment to Ally. Although, if this was the case I feel like the movie could have driven it home a bit more. Like I said, I know that there was more to the character's decision to end his life than that, but the movie doesn't show it, instead making it look as if he decided to hang himself because of a smarmy wee prick's obnoxious comments.
Overall, this film was far better than it had any right to be. Although, the movie is funny in parts, overall it takes itself more seriously than I expected it too and I think that it is better for it. It may not win best picture, but I reckon it deserves a nomination, as does Bradley Cooper for best director.
I expected A Star Is Born to be full of cheesy dialogue and crappy pop songs and I didn't know what to expect from Bradley Cooper's first time in the director's chair. Thankfully, my uncertainty and doubt was proven wrong. This is an absolutely fantastic directorial debut from Cooper. There were several parts in the movie where it felt similar to a Clint Eastwood directed movie, the influence that Clint obviously had on Cooper when they worked together for American Sniper has clearly paid off here. The cinematography is brilliant throughout the film and he gets a lot out of his actors too.
Considering Cooper is an actor, he plays an exceptionally convincing rock star as Jackson Maine. His voice is phenomenal and if all of the guitar playing was done by him, then that was impressive also. Likewise, considering Lady Gaga's background is as a singer and not an actress, she did a pretty great job in this role as Ally - even if she is playing a character very similar to herself. Sam Elliot is also fantastic, (as he always is,) as Jack's older brother and I reckon could be in for an Oscar shout for best supporting role.
In order to talk about the main negative I had with the film, I am going to have to spoil the way that it ends. So SPOILERS from this point on, you have been warned.
I know that Jackson didn't commit suicide just because of what Ally's sleazy agent said to him at the end of the movie, but I only know that because I had to fill in the blanks myself. The way that the movie presents it, is as if the agent tells Jack that he's an embarrassment to Ally and that's what makes him want to hang himself, which to me isn't justification enough to have a character take their own life, especially a character like Jackson Maine. The argument could be made that it wasn't what the agent said that led to Jack's suicide, but because he said out loud the way that Jack sees himself. As a burden and embarrassment to Ally. Although, if this was the case I feel like the movie could have driven it home a bit more. Like I said, I know that there was more to the character's decision to end his life than that, but the movie doesn't show it, instead making it look as if he decided to hang himself because of a smarmy wee prick's obnoxious comments.
Overall, this film was far better than it had any right to be. Although, the movie is funny in parts, overall it takes itself more seriously than I expected it too and I think that it is better for it. It may not win best picture, but I reckon it deserves a nomination, as does Bradley Cooper for best director.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Anchor & Hope (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A heart-wrenching portrait of parenthood & sexuality
Deciding to have a baby is a big step in many couples’ lives, but sometimes, things don’t always go according to plan. Carlos Marques-Marcet’s Anchor and Hope follows two lesbian women who, one drunken night, decide to use their friend’s sperm in order to have a child of their own. It’s not a decision that should be taken lightly, but makes for an interesting story nonetheless. Insemination is a viable option that is often considered by those in same-sex relationships, or by those who struggle to conceive. This is the first film I’ve seen that deals with the subject so explicitly.
Throughout the course of the film, we focus heavily on the lives of Eva, Kat and Roger. The quality of acting was very good and believable, meaning it was easy for me to stay invested in their lives as events transpired. They all have very different personality traits that inevitably clash, and it’s not long before jealousy starts to rear its ugly head and tensions rise. Kat and Roger are close and both fluent in Spanish, meaning they’re able to communicate and Eva hasn’t got a clue what they’re saying. She starts feeling left out, which may or may not have driven her to think about the insemination. It’s left up to the audience to figure that one out. It’s clear Eva wants the baby more than Kat does, which is already a huge red flag.
The baby becomes a central part of the narrative, and the character’s lives. Anchor and Hope presents us with different viewpoints, all centred around this new life. It’s incredibly emotional to watch as we witness how three very different characters respond to it. I respected the fact the film doesn’t position itself as for or against any argument, it simply presents them to the audience as valid responses to what’s happening. Had the film gotten too preachy one way or the other, I think I may have found that frustrating. This is a film that leaves a lot up to the audience, and one that can spark interesting discussions.
Despite my interest in the topic and praise for the acting, I didn’t particularly like any of the characters. They’re all frustrating in their own ways and sometimes it felt a little too far-fetched and melodramatic. This weakened the film for me as I didn’t find myself rooting for anyone, and just wished they’d never made that decision in the first place. There’s no warmth for any of the characters, which was a let down. I also felt the story could have been shorter and snappier, as it felt too drawn out in places.
However, it is a very interesting look into insemination and sperm donors, and the script is strong and considered. It would be easy to cause controversy if not dealt with respectfully, but I felt like appropriate research had been done and they remained impartial throughout. The visuals are clean, well shot, and I liked the use of small, intimate locations to tell the story. Eva and Kat live on a houseboat, so that sense of minimalism is present throughout.
I was mostly entertained and enjoyed watching it, so I would recommend this film if it’s a topic that interests you. Overall, it’s an emotionally charged and well-written LGBT+ film and we definitely need more of those.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/08/anchor-and-hope-a-heart-wrenching-portrait-of-parenthood-sexuality/
Throughout the course of the film, we focus heavily on the lives of Eva, Kat and Roger. The quality of acting was very good and believable, meaning it was easy for me to stay invested in their lives as events transpired. They all have very different personality traits that inevitably clash, and it’s not long before jealousy starts to rear its ugly head and tensions rise. Kat and Roger are close and both fluent in Spanish, meaning they’re able to communicate and Eva hasn’t got a clue what they’re saying. She starts feeling left out, which may or may not have driven her to think about the insemination. It’s left up to the audience to figure that one out. It’s clear Eva wants the baby more than Kat does, which is already a huge red flag.
The baby becomes a central part of the narrative, and the character’s lives. Anchor and Hope presents us with different viewpoints, all centred around this new life. It’s incredibly emotional to watch as we witness how three very different characters respond to it. I respected the fact the film doesn’t position itself as for or against any argument, it simply presents them to the audience as valid responses to what’s happening. Had the film gotten too preachy one way or the other, I think I may have found that frustrating. This is a film that leaves a lot up to the audience, and one that can spark interesting discussions.
Despite my interest in the topic and praise for the acting, I didn’t particularly like any of the characters. They’re all frustrating in their own ways and sometimes it felt a little too far-fetched and melodramatic. This weakened the film for me as I didn’t find myself rooting for anyone, and just wished they’d never made that decision in the first place. There’s no warmth for any of the characters, which was a let down. I also felt the story could have been shorter and snappier, as it felt too drawn out in places.
However, it is a very interesting look into insemination and sperm donors, and the script is strong and considered. It would be easy to cause controversy if not dealt with respectfully, but I felt like appropriate research had been done and they remained impartial throughout. The visuals are clean, well shot, and I liked the use of small, intimate locations to tell the story. Eva and Kat live on a houseboat, so that sense of minimalism is present throughout.
I was mostly entertained and enjoyed watching it, so I would recommend this film if it’s a topic that interests you. Overall, it’s an emotionally charged and well-written LGBT+ film and we definitely need more of those.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/08/anchor-and-hope-a-heart-wrenching-portrait-of-parenthood-sexuality/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Sexy Beast (2000) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Sexy Beast starts as we meet retired safecracker Gal (Winstone) living the life of luxury in a Spanish villa which he enjoys relaxing by the pool enjoying his retirement. His retirement is put to the test when brutal gangster Don Logan (Kingsley) arrives in Spain to try and force him into doing one more job for him, he won’t take no for an answer.
Reluctantly taking the job, Gal returns to London and as most heist style movies, things don’t go to plan.
Thoughts on Sexy Beast
Characters – Gal was once the go to safecracker, now he is in retirement in Spain loving his life in the sun with his pool and friends, he has zero interest in returning to the game even after Don Logan pushes him. He stays relaxed through each scene because he knows his answer will always be no. he does reluctantly return for this last job mostly to get rid of Don. Don Logan is the brutal gangster, he knows who he wants for the jobs and this time it is Gal, he will not take ‘No’ as an answer, he will get violent and his outbursts will be the things you remember the most. Teddy is the man that the job is for, a fellow gangster that wants the best men for the job. DeeDee is the wife of Gal, she will stand by Gal in every decision even after the endless insults thrown their way.
Performances – Ray Winstone is great in this leading role, he is the perfect choice for a cockney criminal who knows there is a better life out there away from London. Ben Kingsley clearly steals every single scene in this movie with his performance that is filed with so much anger and aggression, you won’t be able to take your eyes off him. Ian McShane is great too where he brings us a calmer gangster who is also filled with anger. These three take most of the spotlight away from any other performers in the film.
Story – The story follows a retired criminal that gets forced to return to the game for one final job by an aggressive gangster, where this film does stand out from the other films in this genre, is that our hero Gal is 100% not interested in returning as most film give us the idea of ‘ok, I will do it’ on an easier formula. The story does have a nice twist on how things go and gives us the characters we could believe are from this world. if you are looking for a heist storyline, you will be disappointed though as this film focuses on the idea of getting the man to do the job.
Crime/Thriller – The crime world we enter giving us gangsters which will not take no for an answer, we don’t learn enough of their previous lives in the world though, only going on reputations.
Settings – The film uses Spain for the setting which gives us the retirement feel for a Brit to take, the sun increases the idea of the heat in the scenes.
Scene of the Movie – The heated argument.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The lack of heist action.
Final Thoughts – This is a true British crime film, it has great characters and a stunning performance from Ben Kingsley.
Overall: British Crime 101
Reluctantly taking the job, Gal returns to London and as most heist style movies, things don’t go to plan.
Thoughts on Sexy Beast
Characters – Gal was once the go to safecracker, now he is in retirement in Spain loving his life in the sun with his pool and friends, he has zero interest in returning to the game even after Don Logan pushes him. He stays relaxed through each scene because he knows his answer will always be no. he does reluctantly return for this last job mostly to get rid of Don. Don Logan is the brutal gangster, he knows who he wants for the jobs and this time it is Gal, he will not take ‘No’ as an answer, he will get violent and his outbursts will be the things you remember the most. Teddy is the man that the job is for, a fellow gangster that wants the best men for the job. DeeDee is the wife of Gal, she will stand by Gal in every decision even after the endless insults thrown their way.
Performances – Ray Winstone is great in this leading role, he is the perfect choice for a cockney criminal who knows there is a better life out there away from London. Ben Kingsley clearly steals every single scene in this movie with his performance that is filed with so much anger and aggression, you won’t be able to take your eyes off him. Ian McShane is great too where he brings us a calmer gangster who is also filled with anger. These three take most of the spotlight away from any other performers in the film.
Story – The story follows a retired criminal that gets forced to return to the game for one final job by an aggressive gangster, where this film does stand out from the other films in this genre, is that our hero Gal is 100% not interested in returning as most film give us the idea of ‘ok, I will do it’ on an easier formula. The story does have a nice twist on how things go and gives us the characters we could believe are from this world. if you are looking for a heist storyline, you will be disappointed though as this film focuses on the idea of getting the man to do the job.
Crime/Thriller – The crime world we enter giving us gangsters which will not take no for an answer, we don’t learn enough of their previous lives in the world though, only going on reputations.
Settings – The film uses Spain for the setting which gives us the retirement feel for a Brit to take, the sun increases the idea of the heat in the scenes.
Scene of the Movie – The heated argument.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The lack of heist action.
Final Thoughts – This is a true British crime film, it has great characters and a stunning performance from Ben Kingsley.
Overall: British Crime 101
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The phenomenon of “true crime” as entertainment is disturbing. What we are saying when we subscribe to watch these compellingly morbid shows is that, of course, we don’t “enjoy” or condone the crimes themselves. But, we do increasingly expect that without the grotesque detail of primary crime scene evidence, documented visually, we can switch over to another show that will give us our macabre kick. So, it is a dangerous precedent to say that without that factor we won’t engage.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated We Bought a Zoo (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
From the director of Jerry Maguire and Almost Famous, Cameron Crowe has brought us a great new film starring Mat Damon, Scarlett Johansson, Thomas Hadden Church and up and coming star Elle Fanning. Packed with amazing talent; “We Bought a Zoo” is a heartwarming true story of a man who wants to start over and in doing so, he provides a new life for his young family and his new friends.
Benjamin Mee (Mat Damon), a widowed father of two young children Dylan (Colin Ford) and Rosie (Magie Elizabeth Jones) are in need of a new start. Benjamin’s brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church) has always provided Benjamin with useless and impractical advice. Only this time he strikes the nail on the head by telling his brother that he has to start over. He teams up with Mr. Stevens (J.B Smoove), a first time real estate agent and his daughter Rosie to find the perfect home to start there new future. When they come across the perfect house it comes with some big responsibilities. The Mee family have just become the new owners of a struggling Zoo (Rosemoore Wildlife Park). The Zoo is run by Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson) head zookeeper, Peter, Robin and her cousin Lily (Elle Fanning).They are in need of someone to take charge of the Zoo or it will close forever. With over forty seven animal species, the Zoo is in need of someone with lots of heart and determination to keep it from closing. Although everybody has doubts about Benjamin, even himself, he never gives up. Benjamin and his family are able to start fresh and after an argument here and there among father and son, are able to leave the past behind and look forward to the future.
“We Bought a Zoo” is such a heartwarming true story that will leave you with inspiration. The film is filled with vibrant colors, great cinematography, amazing actors and filled with such inspiration that I would be surprised if it is not in this years Oscar line up. Mat Damon surely delivers in his portrayal of Benjamin Mee. Most children actors don’t go far in the showbiz but great things come in small packages with Magie Elizabeth Jones. At her very young age of seven and her performance in this film I would be surprised if she doesn’t end up being a big star. Elle Fanning and Colin Ford make the perfect young couple and were perfectly paired up as the roles of Colin and Lily and like her sister Dakota Fanning she is becoming a great young actress. I wasn’t very impressed with Scarlett Johansson in this film as she always in my opinion plays the same sort of character in most of her movies with the exception of The Black Widow in the Iron Man films. Though having a somewhat small part in this film, Thomas Haden Church always seems to live up to the characters he portrays especially as Duncan.
This film is one that definitely can not be missed and is a perfect film to kick of the new year. If you love animals and are wanting to see a heartfelt film you will with out a doubt love this film and is definitely Oscar worthy. I left the theater feeling inspired and wanting to help animals that are going extinct. Big cats are disappearing at an alarming rate and with our help we can cause an uproar. To help go to causeanuproar.org to help.
Benjamin Mee (Mat Damon), a widowed father of two young children Dylan (Colin Ford) and Rosie (Magie Elizabeth Jones) are in need of a new start. Benjamin’s brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church) has always provided Benjamin with useless and impractical advice. Only this time he strikes the nail on the head by telling his brother that he has to start over. He teams up with Mr. Stevens (J.B Smoove), a first time real estate agent and his daughter Rosie to find the perfect home to start there new future. When they come across the perfect house it comes with some big responsibilities. The Mee family have just become the new owners of a struggling Zoo (Rosemoore Wildlife Park). The Zoo is run by Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson) head zookeeper, Peter, Robin and her cousin Lily (Elle Fanning).They are in need of someone to take charge of the Zoo or it will close forever. With over forty seven animal species, the Zoo is in need of someone with lots of heart and determination to keep it from closing. Although everybody has doubts about Benjamin, even himself, he never gives up. Benjamin and his family are able to start fresh and after an argument here and there among father and son, are able to leave the past behind and look forward to the future.
“We Bought a Zoo” is such a heartwarming true story that will leave you with inspiration. The film is filled with vibrant colors, great cinematography, amazing actors and filled with such inspiration that I would be surprised if it is not in this years Oscar line up. Mat Damon surely delivers in his portrayal of Benjamin Mee. Most children actors don’t go far in the showbiz but great things come in small packages with Magie Elizabeth Jones. At her very young age of seven and her performance in this film I would be surprised if she doesn’t end up being a big star. Elle Fanning and Colin Ford make the perfect young couple and were perfectly paired up as the roles of Colin and Lily and like her sister Dakota Fanning she is becoming a great young actress. I wasn’t very impressed with Scarlett Johansson in this film as she always in my opinion plays the same sort of character in most of her movies with the exception of The Black Widow in the Iron Man films. Though having a somewhat small part in this film, Thomas Haden Church always seems to live up to the characters he portrays especially as Duncan.
This film is one that definitely can not be missed and is a perfect film to kick of the new year. If you love animals and are wanting to see a heartfelt film you will with out a doubt love this film and is definitely Oscar worthy. I left the theater feeling inspired and wanting to help animals that are going extinct. Big cats are disappearing at an alarming rate and with our help we can cause an uproar. To help go to causeanuproar.org to help.