Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Is it a musical? Is it a biopic? Does anyone actually know? I think one of the descriptions I saw called it a fantasy, and that is true for a couple of moments but it's a bit of a push. I had a good time watching this and there are definitely things about it that work well, I do however feel that this was rather confused. You've got the story parts mixed with the songs, but only occasionally are those songs what I'd call proper musical numbers. The occasional fantasy moments are a little
The costumes design was wonderful, as you'd expect when you're dressing "Elton". Everything looked just right, all the outfits were inspired by originals that he wore on stage. Just one was almost a direct copy, the baseball uniform that Elton wore was made of sequins and the Rocketman version was made of Swarovski crystals. I also loved the way they adapted the devil costume as the story progressed, very imaginative.
There are a few scenes with fantasy elements in them, one didn't feel like it fit into the whole movie, but I liked the way it landed. I did however love the scene where young Reggie conducts an orchestra, it was a beautiful scene that blended in seamlessly with the regular action.
Good on Taron Egerton for doing the singing for Rocketman, it's no small challenge, but it didn't do it for me. Listening to Elton songs gives me a buzz, there's a vibrancy to his voice and I just didn't feel that in the songs.
Overall, in fact, there were only two points where I really felt moved by what was going on. The first was a moment we actually see in the trailer where Eton and his audience take to the air. When that scene happens in the film it gave me goosebumps, it was perfectly timed and... uplifting... sorry. The second scene was during the conclusion which I won't go into because of spoilers.
While the acting was fine in Rocketman I was drawn much more to it artistically. The costumes, the sets, how the elements all flowed well together, absolutely stunning.
I think if I'd connected better with the songs I could have forgiven the fact that they were haphazardly combining genres, but as it was I felt it didn't fully deliver. As an addition to the recent trend of movies based on music I'm not completely sold, but it does take a bold step in portraying gay relationships, and abusive ones, on the screen which I think should be applauded.
What you should do
It's definitely sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll, so if those things aren't for you then I'd try something different, but for the sheer spectacle, it was worth watching.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
My own costume designer? But someone with a little less dramatic flare.
The costumes design was wonderful, as you'd expect when you're dressing "Elton". Everything looked just right, all the outfits were inspired by originals that he wore on stage. Just one was almost a direct copy, the baseball uniform that Elton wore was made of sequins and the Rocketman version was made of Swarovski crystals. I also loved the way they adapted the devil costume as the story progressed, very imaginative.
There are a few scenes with fantasy elements in them, one didn't feel like it fit into the whole movie, but I liked the way it landed. I did however love the scene where young Reggie conducts an orchestra, it was a beautiful scene that blended in seamlessly with the regular action.
Good on Taron Egerton for doing the singing for Rocketman, it's no small challenge, but it didn't do it for me. Listening to Elton songs gives me a buzz, there's a vibrancy to his voice and I just didn't feel that in the songs.
Overall, in fact, there were only two points where I really felt moved by what was going on. The first was a moment we actually see in the trailer where Eton and his audience take to the air. When that scene happens in the film it gave me goosebumps, it was perfectly timed and... uplifting... sorry. The second scene was during the conclusion which I won't go into because of spoilers.
While the acting was fine in Rocketman I was drawn much more to it artistically. The costumes, the sets, how the elements all flowed well together, absolutely stunning.
I think if I'd connected better with the songs I could have forgiven the fact that they were haphazardly combining genres, but as it was I felt it didn't fully deliver. As an addition to the recent trend of movies based on music I'm not completely sold, but it does take a bold step in portraying gay relationships, and abusive ones, on the screen which I think should be applauded.
What you should do
It's definitely sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll, so if those things aren't for you then I'd try something different, but for the sheer spectacle, it was worth watching.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
My own costume designer? But someone with a little less dramatic flare.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Too scary for kids - not scary enough for teenagers
SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK is a good "starter" horror film. A step up from fair like Goosebumps but not quite to the level (in intensity, gore and violence) of a "real" Horror film like HEREDITY, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY or the SAW franchise - and that just might be it's downfall for it is stuck in a very narrow band of viewers who will enjoy this (too intense for younger kids, to "kidd-ish" for teenagers and above).
And that's too bad, for SCARY STORIES is a pretty well put together film. Telling...well...a series of scary stories that come true (to the detriment of the teens that these stories are written about).
Based on the YA series of novels of the same name, Director Andre Overdal stitches together (in some instances quite literally) a creepy (enough) tale of teens in danger by things that go bump into the night. There are good (enough) scares, some real (enough) spine-tingling chills and just (enough) death and destruction to keep things interesting.
And that's good for the cast is pretty bland. Zoe Margaret Coletti, Michael Garza, Gabriel Rush and Austin Zajur are "fine" (but interchangeable) as the 4 teens caught in the crossfire of these stories. Their performances/characters are almost good enough to sustain things, but, ultimately, brought nothing new or interesting to their roles. Neither do Lorraine Toussaint, Gil Bellows and Dean Norris, 3 usually dependable actors that just sort of drift in and out of this film with not much to do.
But that doesn't really matter for the special effects, scares and story threads are what you are there to see and the special effects are good (enough), the scares are scary (enough) and the story is just interesting (enough) to let you have a decent (enough) time at the theater.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that's too bad, for SCARY STORIES is a pretty well put together film. Telling...well...a series of scary stories that come true (to the detriment of the teens that these stories are written about).
Based on the YA series of novels of the same name, Director Andre Overdal stitches together (in some instances quite literally) a creepy (enough) tale of teens in danger by things that go bump into the night. There are good (enough) scares, some real (enough) spine-tingling chills and just (enough) death and destruction to keep things interesting.
And that's good for the cast is pretty bland. Zoe Margaret Coletti, Michael Garza, Gabriel Rush and Austin Zajur are "fine" (but interchangeable) as the 4 teens caught in the crossfire of these stories. Their performances/characters are almost good enough to sustain things, but, ultimately, brought nothing new or interesting to their roles. Neither do Lorraine Toussaint, Gil Bellows and Dean Norris, 3 usually dependable actors that just sort of drift in and out of this film with not much to do.
But that doesn't really matter for the special effects, scares and story threads are what you are there to see and the special effects are good (enough), the scares are scary (enough) and the story is just interesting (enough) to let you have a decent (enough) time at the theater.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated The Pink Bonnet: True Colors in Books
Jul 2, 2019
Cecile Dowd is a single mother, just trying to keep life together in 1933 for her and her three year old daughter Millie. Cecile is a widow and it's the great depression. Without her husband, it's difficult to always control Millie's behavior and make sure there is enough food on the table. Cecile decides she needs to get another job to help make things easier. While she goes out looking, she leaves Millie with a neighbor. When she returns to pick up Millie at the end of the day, Millie is gone. The neighbor says, that Cecile can't handle the child and has given her to someone who can help, Georgia Tann the head of the Tennessee Children's Home. They "help" parents find loving families for their children. But Cecile didn't ask for this and neither did a lot of other parents. Ms. Tann is taking children from parents she deems unfit and sending them to other families in the area. Ms. Tann has most of the Tennessee government in her back pocket and no matter who Cecile goes to for help, it's to no avail. Will she be able to find Millie before she's gone forever? With people trying to stop her at every turn, Cecile is determined, no matter what the cost.
Thank you to NetGalley and Barbour Publishing for the opportunity to read and review this book.
This book is based on a true story. Georgia Tann was a real woman who really ran an adoption agency in Tennessee for over 25 years. During her tenure, it is believed that approximately 5,000 children were taken unwillingly from their parents and sold in adoptions to whoever would pay the highest price.
This book hit my heart hard. I can't imagine what I would do, if I left my child with a friend or neighbor for a little bit and then when I came back they had forged my name on documents to allow my child to be taken for adoption. Or if they were just snatched from the street on their way home from school. This was happening to hundreds of families during the depression. People were doing anything they could to make ends meet, but for Georgia Tann that didn't matter. One parent should be with the child at all times. That is the only way to show that you really love and are able to take care of the child.
I would love to read more about this lady. I hope there was a warm seat in hell waiting for her and all her cohorts when she passed away. Throughout the story, you can feel the love for Millie that Cecile has and she risks her life and the lives of those that are helping her in order to get to her daughter. No matter what she does, though it never seems like enough, Millie is always just beyond her grasp.
If you like historical, true crime fiction, you will enjoy this book.
Thank you to NetGalley and Barbour Publishing for the opportunity to read and review this book.
This book is based on a true story. Georgia Tann was a real woman who really ran an adoption agency in Tennessee for over 25 years. During her tenure, it is believed that approximately 5,000 children were taken unwillingly from their parents and sold in adoptions to whoever would pay the highest price.
This book hit my heart hard. I can't imagine what I would do, if I left my child with a friend or neighbor for a little bit and then when I came back they had forged my name on documents to allow my child to be taken for adoption. Or if they were just snatched from the street on their way home from school. This was happening to hundreds of families during the depression. People were doing anything they could to make ends meet, but for Georgia Tann that didn't matter. One parent should be with the child at all times. That is the only way to show that you really love and are able to take care of the child.
I would love to read more about this lady. I hope there was a warm seat in hell waiting for her and all her cohorts when she passed away. Throughout the story, you can feel the love for Millie that Cecile has and she risks her life and the lives of those that are helping her in order to get to her daughter. No matter what she does, though it never seems like enough, Millie is always just beyond her grasp.
If you like historical, true crime fiction, you will enjoy this book.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2020
The more films I see by James Mangold, the more I like him.
Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans '66 as it's titled in the UK) is an outstanding movie in every way.
Based on a true story, FvF follows car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and race driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) after they are commissioned by Ford to create a new race car capable of beating the notorious Ferrari team during the Le Mans endurance race in France.
I'm not really into racing - I'm not a big sports guy full stop - but this film balances the amount of racing action and heartfelt and frequently humourous drama perfectly.
Both Matt Damon and Christian Bale just bought everything they have to this, and straight up deserved Oscars - I would actually go as far as saying this is arguably Bales' best performance to date.
The supporting cast are fantastic as well, especially Caitriona Balfe as the wife of Ken Miles, Mollie. The chemistry between her and Bales' character is believable and sweet.
I also enjoyed Josh Lucas as smarmy Ford executive Leo Beebe, and detested his character with a passion. And of course Jon Bernthal - I'm yet to see him in anything where he is less than great.
The story is inspiring to say the least, and the screenplay is clever in the way that it focuses on the every day character like Ken Miles, has you rooting for him against the suits, people who put money and profit in front of knowledge. It's a relatable feeling.
As I mentioned, I'm not a big sports guy, so taking this into account, the racing scenes (of which there are a fair few) were nothing short of thrilling. They're really well shot, with seamless special effects, and full of tension. In fact, every inch of Ford v Ferrari feels like it's had so much love, attention, and detail poured into it. It's an all round great experience.
I haven't a single bad word to say about Ford v Ferrari, it's spectacular, full of soul, and easily one of the best films of 2019.
Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans '66 as it's titled in the UK) is an outstanding movie in every way.
Based on a true story, FvF follows car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and race driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) after they are commissioned by Ford to create a new race car capable of beating the notorious Ferrari team during the Le Mans endurance race in France.
I'm not really into racing - I'm not a big sports guy full stop - but this film balances the amount of racing action and heartfelt and frequently humourous drama perfectly.
Both Matt Damon and Christian Bale just bought everything they have to this, and straight up deserved Oscars - I would actually go as far as saying this is arguably Bales' best performance to date.
The supporting cast are fantastic as well, especially Caitriona Balfe as the wife of Ken Miles, Mollie. The chemistry between her and Bales' character is believable and sweet.
I also enjoyed Josh Lucas as smarmy Ford executive Leo Beebe, and detested his character with a passion. And of course Jon Bernthal - I'm yet to see him in anything where he is less than great.
The story is inspiring to say the least, and the screenplay is clever in the way that it focuses on the every day character like Ken Miles, has you rooting for him against the suits, people who put money and profit in front of knowledge. It's a relatable feeling.
As I mentioned, I'm not a big sports guy, so taking this into account, the racing scenes (of which there are a fair few) were nothing short of thrilling. They're really well shot, with seamless special effects, and full of tension. In fact, every inch of Ford v Ferrari feels like it's had so much love, attention, and detail poured into it. It's an all round great experience.
I haven't a single bad word to say about Ford v Ferrari, it's spectacular, full of soul, and easily one of the best films of 2019.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pompeii (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The disaster movie has always been a genre guaranteed to create incredible box-office returns. If you look at Roland Emmerich’s impressive blockbuster hit 2012, which grossed over $750million, it is clear that destroying well-known landmarks = bums on seats.
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
The Miner (2017)
5.0
Rate It
Movie Watch
2009, Slovenia, European Union. For 30 years, Alija, the miner, has been one of the many Bosnian...
international drama history biography
Cynthia Armistead (17 KP) rated A Free Man of Color (Benjamin January, #1) in Books
Mar 1, 2018
Historical fiction isn't my favorite genre, but I'm much more willing to read it when it's mixed with mystery. I've read some of Hambly's work before and know her to be a fine writer, and I'd read good reviews of this series by people I respect, so I decided to give it a whirl.
I suppose all the descriptions of people's clothing would have mattered much more to someone who cared about such things, but I do realize that they were important in the context of the story. Personally, I was relieved when the main character went on a journey! I would have been happier had his medical skills been utilized more frequently than they were, but I suppose his experiences were fairly true to life for a "colored" man of his time.
I did learn quite a lot—things that I intend to verify in non-fiction sources shortly. The information about the black code, for instance, and the explanation of the distinction between "black" and "colored" people seemed too precise to be fabricated.
I knew, too, that Louisiana is the only U.S. state whose laws are based on French rather than English common law, which seemed silly to me. Why wouldn't they go with the standard everyone else used? After reading this novel, I'm starting to realize that there may have been rights given to citizens under French law that were lost under English law.
I'm not sure as to whether or not I'll go forward in the series, as I'm not sure that I can handle the unhappiness I can see foreshadowed even in some of the titles. However, I will say that this volume is well-written and well-plotted. I certainly didn't guess who the killer was or why the murder was committed before the big reveal, and that was a pleasant change!
I suppose all the descriptions of people's clothing would have mattered much more to someone who cared about such things, but I do realize that they were important in the context of the story. Personally, I was relieved when the main character went on a journey! I would have been happier had his medical skills been utilized more frequently than they were, but I suppose his experiences were fairly true to life for a "colored" man of his time.
I did learn quite a lot—things that I intend to verify in non-fiction sources shortly. The information about the black code, for instance, and the explanation of the distinction between "black" and "colored" people seemed too precise to be fabricated.
I knew, too, that Louisiana is the only U.S. state whose laws are based on French rather than English common law, which seemed silly to me. Why wouldn't they go with the standard everyone else used? After reading this novel, I'm starting to realize that there may have been rights given to citizens under French law that were lost under English law.
I'm not sure as to whether or not I'll go forward in the series, as I'm not sure that I can handle the unhappiness I can see foreshadowed even in some of the titles. However, I will say that this volume is well-written and well-plotted. I certainly didn't guess who the killer was or why the murder was committed before the big reveal, and that was a pleasant change!
Trumpet Blues: The Life of Harry James
Book
Swing is back in style, and with it a renewed interest in the Big Band Era. And few players...
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Inherit the Wind (1960) in Movies
Feb 1, 2020
I found this movie incredibly interesting. Not only is it based on a true story, I think it's a film that transcends time because of its themes. All of the issues discussed in this movie are ones that we still talk about today. We see all the time arguments for more religion in schools or less, and religion itself is argued and where its place is in our lives. I think this movie does a beautiful job of pushing those boundaries and causing you to question why it is we believe what we do and why we're so set on others believing it too.
As far as the cast and the acting, I think it's phenomenal. Obviously, with powerhouses like Gene Kelly, Spencer Tracy, and Fredric March, their performances are incredible. I find the women in the film to be less believable but I think it's more the time and the way women acted in the '60s and less to do with the women themselves. The overdramatic, falling after their husband or fiancé, in one case, is just played out - but that also might just be me speaking from my own experience.
Overall, I think this movie is great. It holds up 60 years after its initial release and I'm sure it will hold up for another 60 years. I think it pushes positive conversations and forces you to think outside of your own experiences and your own life and in general, I think that's what art (in any form) should do. Would definitely recommend this film.
As far as the cast and the acting, I think it's phenomenal. Obviously, with powerhouses like Gene Kelly, Spencer Tracy, and Fredric March, their performances are incredible. I find the women in the film to be less believable but I think it's more the time and the way women acted in the '60s and less to do with the women themselves. The overdramatic, falling after their husband or fiancé, in one case, is just played out - but that also might just be me speaking from my own experience.
Overall, I think this movie is great. It holds up 60 years after its initial release and I'm sure it will hold up for another 60 years. I think it pushes positive conversations and forces you to think outside of your own experiences and your own life and in general, I think that's what art (in any form) should do. Would definitely recommend this film.