Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Doom (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In a remote section of Mars, something has gone horribly wrong for the scientists of the Union Aerospace Corporation’s research facility. Scientists run screaming for their lives from a deadly threat. Trapped on a barren world against forces unknown, the call goes out for an elite team of specialists to contain the situation, and neutralize the threat at any cost.
In the new game to film adaptation Doom which is based on the phenomenally popular game series of the same name, International Action Star The Rock stars as Sarge, a by the book, no nonsense leader Of a rapid response team who have been tasked with quelling the situation on Mars. His #2 is John (Reaper) Grimm (Karl Urban), the son of two scientists who were killed years earlier in a move that drove John from the Red Planet and into the corps.
Unsure about where his head is Sarge suggests John take leave and skip the mission less he provide an unstable factor. Driven by his concern for his sister on the planet, and his devotion to duty, John accompanies his team to Mars via a teleportation device know as the Arc.
In no time the team has arrived and begun sweeping the affected areas of the base, and working to ensure that nothing can return to Earth without permission. As the team surveys the dark and isolated lab areas, John is also reunited with his sister Sam (Rosamund Pike), which brings up the memories of their dead parents and repressed hostility over his departure and emotional distance.
Of course this is a movie based on monsters and violence, so in no time, there are some strange things lurking in the darkened corridors of the lab and the team finds themselves locked in a series of deadly confrontations against enemies of unimaginable horror.
In short order the team is picked off by the deadly opposition which causes strain amongst the survivors, as it becomes clear that the work being conducted at the base was far from the simple excavations that they had been claiming for years. The truth is far more dangerous and soon has the very safety of Earth in the balance.
The changing dynamic soon divides Sarge and John and they find themselves at odds with not only the creatures but themselves as they battle for survival and the safety of the Earth.
As a fan of the game series I had followed the long development of the film with interest. As production began there were reports that the film would deviate from the game in not being set on Mars and following Zombies more than demons from hell. While the film is set on Mars there is some deviation that may upset fans of the game. Hell does not serve as the source of the enemies; rather it is something that is not present in any of the games. Another deviation is that the film unlike the game is not nonstop action.
Doom moves at a very deliberate pace and when the action comes, it tends to be against a solitary foe. Only for a brief segment near the conclusion of the film do we get a battle against a large mass, and then it is very short. The novel first person perspective shown late in the film was great fun as the audience howled with delight during this segment.
The Rock shows once again that he is a rising Star as his charisma and commanding presence propels the film even though he is a supporting character. No matter the cheese factor, or stiff lines, The Rock is such a compelling presence, he makes the film viewable. Urban is good in the lead role, though he is overshadowed by The Rock, as his strong soft spoken mannerisms seem out of place in a macho action setting.
All of this said, while it is by no means a landmark piece of cinema, Doom is fun, and is easily the best game adaptation to film yet.
In the new game to film adaptation Doom which is based on the phenomenally popular game series of the same name, International Action Star The Rock stars as Sarge, a by the book, no nonsense leader Of a rapid response team who have been tasked with quelling the situation on Mars. His #2 is John (Reaper) Grimm (Karl Urban), the son of two scientists who were killed years earlier in a move that drove John from the Red Planet and into the corps.
Unsure about where his head is Sarge suggests John take leave and skip the mission less he provide an unstable factor. Driven by his concern for his sister on the planet, and his devotion to duty, John accompanies his team to Mars via a teleportation device know as the Arc.
In no time the team has arrived and begun sweeping the affected areas of the base, and working to ensure that nothing can return to Earth without permission. As the team surveys the dark and isolated lab areas, John is also reunited with his sister Sam (Rosamund Pike), which brings up the memories of their dead parents and repressed hostility over his departure and emotional distance.
Of course this is a movie based on monsters and violence, so in no time, there are some strange things lurking in the darkened corridors of the lab and the team finds themselves locked in a series of deadly confrontations against enemies of unimaginable horror.
In short order the team is picked off by the deadly opposition which causes strain amongst the survivors, as it becomes clear that the work being conducted at the base was far from the simple excavations that they had been claiming for years. The truth is far more dangerous and soon has the very safety of Earth in the balance.
The changing dynamic soon divides Sarge and John and they find themselves at odds with not only the creatures but themselves as they battle for survival and the safety of the Earth.
As a fan of the game series I had followed the long development of the film with interest. As production began there were reports that the film would deviate from the game in not being set on Mars and following Zombies more than demons from hell. While the film is set on Mars there is some deviation that may upset fans of the game. Hell does not serve as the source of the enemies; rather it is something that is not present in any of the games. Another deviation is that the film unlike the game is not nonstop action.
Doom moves at a very deliberate pace and when the action comes, it tends to be against a solitary foe. Only for a brief segment near the conclusion of the film do we get a battle against a large mass, and then it is very short. The novel first person perspective shown late in the film was great fun as the audience howled with delight during this segment.
The Rock shows once again that he is a rising Star as his charisma and commanding presence propels the film even though he is a supporting character. No matter the cheese factor, or stiff lines, The Rock is such a compelling presence, he makes the film viewable. Urban is good in the lead role, though he is overshadowed by The Rock, as his strong soft spoken mannerisms seem out of place in a macho action setting.
All of this said, while it is by no means a landmark piece of cinema, Doom is fun, and is easily the best game adaptation to film yet.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2269 KP) rated A Time For Murder in Books
Nov 27, 2019
Jessica’s First Murder Mystery Comes Back to Haunt Her
When Jessica Fletcher sits down to be interviewed by a student from Cabot Cove High School, she is surprised to find the student bringing up Jessica’s first time solving a murder. No, it wasn’t at the launch party of her first book, but it was twenty-five years ago when she, her husband Frank, and their nephew Grady were living in Appleton, Maine. The principal where Jessica was a substitute English teacher was murdered, and Jessica helped solve the case. Jessica usually doesn’t talk about it, and she deflects again, but when she goes to apologize to the student later, she discovers that the woman who interviewed her wasn’t a student at the high school at all. Who interviewed her? What is her interest in the case?
Going into this book, I was concerned that this book was going to contradict things established in the pilot episode of the TV show, but it does a good job of explaining things so that this doesn’t happen. We do spend part of the book in the past, and all the transitions are easy to follow. I found both mysteries, past and present, to be very compelling, and I couldn’t put the book down until I reached the climax. Unfortunately, the climax is a bit over the top, which has happened in the books I’ve read in the series. Likewise, I did find that Jessica, Mort, and Seth spent more time sniping at each other than I remembered from most episodes of the show. On the other hand, Jessica has stopped swearing, which was a welcome return to normalcy for the character. This book is the fiftieth novel based on the show, and as a result manages to work in a few Easter Eggs that fans will enjoy. If you are a fan, you’ll enjoy this entry.
Going into this book, I was concerned that this book was going to contradict things established in the pilot episode of the TV show, but it does a good job of explaining things so that this doesn’t happen. We do spend part of the book in the past, and all the transitions are easy to follow. I found both mysteries, past and present, to be very compelling, and I couldn’t put the book down until I reached the climax. Unfortunately, the climax is a bit over the top, which has happened in the books I’ve read in the series. Likewise, I did find that Jessica, Mort, and Seth spent more time sniping at each other than I remembered from most episodes of the show. On the other hand, Jessica has stopped swearing, which was a welcome return to normalcy for the character. This book is the fiftieth novel based on the show, and as a result manages to work in a few Easter Eggs that fans will enjoy. If you are a fan, you’ll enjoy this entry.
JT (287 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
It would be a major change for any actress. But for Claire Foy, to go from the beauty and elegance of Elizabeth II in The Crown, to punked out gothic hacker in The Girl in the Spider’s Web takes some doing – and she adapts to it extremely well.
The film is based on the novel written by David Lagercrantz after original writer Stig Larsson’s death. It attempted to restart the series which had become very popular, especially with the original films starring Noomi Rapace. These were held in high regard and the decision to remake The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was met with cautious scepticism.
But where David Fincher’s remake was dark and unnerving Fede Alvarez‘s Spider’s Web is stylish and explosive. Filled with gadgets and a variety of hacking abilities that wouldn’t look out of place within the world of James Bond or Mission Impossible, the film doesn’t provide enough sinister thrills. Instead, it pumps out several action set pieces, that while thoroughly entertaining, leave behind the trauma and shock value of Dragon Tattoo and subsequent originals.
Filled with gadgets and a variety of hacking abilities that wouldn’t look out of place within the world of James Bond or Mission Impossible
After an opening that provides plenty of back story surrounding Lisbeth’s childhood, we’re fast-forwarded into the high-tech world. Here a computer programme that can access virtually any nuclear codes in the world has been created by a now remorseful tech whiz (Stephen Merchant) who wants to help destroy it. With a number of people interested in the program, Lisbeth must go on the run and at the same time dig up her past in order to save the world.
This incarnation of Lisbeth Salander feels like a softer version compared with the portrayal by Rapace and 2011’s Rooney Mara. Yet the character is played with gusto by Foy who delivers her lines with a determined grittiness. The film’s plot while somewhat far fetched, is still an enjoyable ride.
The film is based on the novel written by David Lagercrantz after original writer Stig Larsson’s death. It attempted to restart the series which had become very popular, especially with the original films starring Noomi Rapace. These were held in high regard and the decision to remake The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was met with cautious scepticism.
But where David Fincher’s remake was dark and unnerving Fede Alvarez‘s Spider’s Web is stylish and explosive. Filled with gadgets and a variety of hacking abilities that wouldn’t look out of place within the world of James Bond or Mission Impossible, the film doesn’t provide enough sinister thrills. Instead, it pumps out several action set pieces, that while thoroughly entertaining, leave behind the trauma and shock value of Dragon Tattoo and subsequent originals.
Filled with gadgets and a variety of hacking abilities that wouldn’t look out of place within the world of James Bond or Mission Impossible
After an opening that provides plenty of back story surrounding Lisbeth’s childhood, we’re fast-forwarded into the high-tech world. Here a computer programme that can access virtually any nuclear codes in the world has been created by a now remorseful tech whiz (Stephen Merchant) who wants to help destroy it. With a number of people interested in the program, Lisbeth must go on the run and at the same time dig up her past in order to save the world.
This incarnation of Lisbeth Salander feels like a softer version compared with the portrayal by Rapace and 2011’s Rooney Mara. Yet the character is played with gusto by Foy who delivers her lines with a determined grittiness. The film’s plot while somewhat far fetched, is still an enjoyable ride.
Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated The Last Piece of My Heart in Books
Aug 26, 2019 (Updated Sep 3, 2019)
Paige Toon has always been an author I'll buy. I've pretty much read all of her books apart from her last two or three--which I own but haven't gotten around to reading yet. I always tend to find Toon's books easy to get through and once I start, it's a case of full steam ahead.
So Bridget is a travel journalist who is also writing a blog about reclaiming the pieces of her heart that she lost to past boyfriends who she fell in love with, flying all over the world to meet up with them and asking for the pieces back. At the same time, she's been tasked with finishing writing a sequel to a bestselling novel after the author died suddenly half way through writing it.
It was interesting to read the authors journals and to see that a lot of her story was based on her own experiences when she was younger. I enjoyed Bridget's time getting to know Nicki--the author who had sadly passed away--through the stories told in notebooks and from her husband, Charlie.
Then there's Nicki and Charlie's baby daughter, April. I've got a serious weakness for cute babies/children in stories. She's used as a pretty focal character in the book and I think, like Bridget, that we start to fall in love with her from early on.
I think Toon did a good job of writing a grieving husband (and other family members) and the tenderness of finding new love after such a big loss.
I'm looking forward to reading those other books I mentioned above.
So Bridget is a travel journalist who is also writing a blog about reclaiming the pieces of her heart that she lost to past boyfriends who she fell in love with, flying all over the world to meet up with them and asking for the pieces back. At the same time, she's been tasked with finishing writing a sequel to a bestselling novel after the author died suddenly half way through writing it.
It was interesting to read the authors journals and to see that a lot of her story was based on her own experiences when she was younger. I enjoyed Bridget's time getting to know Nicki--the author who had sadly passed away--through the stories told in notebooks and from her husband, Charlie.
Then there's Nicki and Charlie's baby daughter, April. I've got a serious weakness for cute babies/children in stories. She's used as a pretty focal character in the book and I think, like Bridget, that we start to fall in love with her from early on.
I think Toon did a good job of writing a grieving husband (and other family members) and the tenderness of finding new love after such a big loss.
I'm looking forward to reading those other books I mentioned above.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
From Accidents to Zero: A Practical Guide to Improving Your Workplace Safety Culture
Book
As leaders increasingly understand the importance of good safety practice to support their business...
Kill the Father
8.5
Rate It
Book
'The rock cast a sharp, dark shadow over a shape huddled on the ground. Please don't let it be the...
Spice and Wolf
7.0
Rate It
TV Show
Holo is a powerful wolf deity who is celebrated and revered in the small town of Pasloe for blessing...
Romance Supernatural
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A man called otto (2022) in Movies
Apr 8, 2023
Has Over-Sized Heart
They sure don’t make films like this anymore. A character study/drama featuring an “A-List” Star about a curmudgeon who finds that there is more to life than to hide from it. It’s the type of subject matter that has been seen over and over again, but this one hits differently.
It has an over-sized heart.
Based on the Swedish novel (and film) A MAN CALLED OVE…OTTO (played by Tom Hanks) is a recent Widower, who is forcibly retired and has given up on life. The question of the film is whether Otto can find a reason to keep on living.
These types of films can be over-melodramatic and saccharine, but in the capable hands of veteran Director Marc Forster (FINDING NEVERLAND) and the performance of Hanks (who shows that he still has his fastball) this film will touch your heart…if you open your heart up enough to receive it.
Foster has created a world where Otto has sealed himself off from the world by keeping a sharp eye on the perimeters of his row-housing. With an Engineering background, and a keen eye for detail, Otto keeps his world neat and orderly. However, it becomes clear that what Otto is really doing is retreating into this world - and further into himself - until a new neighbor (and a stray cat) starts pulling Otto out his cocoon.
Hanks, as mentioned above, is wonderful as the curmudgeonly Otto. It helps that Hanks’ inherit charm shines through during the early, grumpy, despondant portions of Otto’s existence. Despite what one is seeing on the surface, the audience instantly starts to root for Otto, more than likely due to the audience goodwill that Hanks has built up over his long and lusterous career.
Newcomer (at least to the BankofMarquis) Mariana Trevino is just as strong and caring as the new neighbor that starts breaking through the exterior of Otto. It is important for a film of this sort to have someone just as strong (but not overpowering) as the lead performer to serve as a balance. This Trevino (and the rest of the supporting cast) do very, very well.
Credit for this has to go to Director Forster who surehandedly steers the course of this film, threading the needle effectively on the edge of emotional heft and heart without falling into caricature and melodrama.
It is a charming, effective, quiet film that surprised the BankofMarquis with the amount of earnest heart imbedded within. If you are looking for a film that will charm you and warm your insides, look no further than A MAN CALLED OTTO.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It has an over-sized heart.
Based on the Swedish novel (and film) A MAN CALLED OVE…OTTO (played by Tom Hanks) is a recent Widower, who is forcibly retired and has given up on life. The question of the film is whether Otto can find a reason to keep on living.
These types of films can be over-melodramatic and saccharine, but in the capable hands of veteran Director Marc Forster (FINDING NEVERLAND) and the performance of Hanks (who shows that he still has his fastball) this film will touch your heart…if you open your heart up enough to receive it.
Foster has created a world where Otto has sealed himself off from the world by keeping a sharp eye on the perimeters of his row-housing. With an Engineering background, and a keen eye for detail, Otto keeps his world neat and orderly. However, it becomes clear that what Otto is really doing is retreating into this world - and further into himself - until a new neighbor (and a stray cat) starts pulling Otto out his cocoon.
Hanks, as mentioned above, is wonderful as the curmudgeonly Otto. It helps that Hanks’ inherit charm shines through during the early, grumpy, despondant portions of Otto’s existence. Despite what one is seeing on the surface, the audience instantly starts to root for Otto, more than likely due to the audience goodwill that Hanks has built up over his long and lusterous career.
Newcomer (at least to the BankofMarquis) Mariana Trevino is just as strong and caring as the new neighbor that starts breaking through the exterior of Otto. It is important for a film of this sort to have someone just as strong (but not overpowering) as the lead performer to serve as a balance. This Trevino (and the rest of the supporting cast) do very, very well.
Credit for this has to go to Director Forster who surehandedly steers the course of this film, threading the needle effectively on the edge of emotional heft and heart without falling into caricature and melodrama.
It is a charming, effective, quiet film that surprised the BankofMarquis with the amount of earnest heart imbedded within. If you are looking for a film that will charm you and warm your insides, look no further than A MAN CALLED OTTO.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Care and Management of Lies in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
British author Jacqueline Winspear states in the letter from the author at the front of the book that the idea for this novel came from a second hand copy of a book titled <i>The Woman’s Book</i> by Florence B Jack (1911) containing an inscription revealing that it was presented as a gift to a woman on her wedding day in July 1914. The story within </i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is Winspear’s imaginings about who that woman was and what her life was like.
The book focuses primarily on four characters, the main being Kezia Brissenden née Marchant who receives the gift <i>The Woman’s Book</i> from a close friend, Dorothy “Thea”, who so happens to be the older sister of her new husband, Tom. The book was not a particularly kind gift as it emphasized Kezia’s upbringing and who, due to her father being a reverend and employer of maids and cooks, had never produced her own meal in her life nor had any experience with running a household, let alone a farm – her new home.
Whilst Kezia determinedly throws herself into her new role, showing her love for Tom through the food she learns to cook, Thea, living in London, is drifting away from their friendship. With the possibility of war on the horizon, Thea joins a pacifist movement, which is somewhat ironic as she was once involved with the suffragettes. On the other hand, once war is declared, Tom decides to enlist in the army as does neighbour, Edmund Hawkes, a man who is rather envious of Tom and his lovely wife. The reader receives two different perspectives of the terrors of war from these characters, but then also another, surprisingly, from Thea who rejects pacifism and goes out to France to help in anyway she can. This leaves Kezia at home alone with the effects the war has on Britain.
The love between Kezia and Tom is emphasized through the letters they send each other. Both are lying about their situations by trying to convince the other that they are better off than they really are. The thing that keeps them both going are Kezia’s descriptions of her fictional meals that she prepares for Tom’s dinner, describing in great detail the preparation and taste of the food.
Each chapter begins with a quote from <i>The Woman’s Book</i> (and later <i>Infantry Training</i> and <i>Field Service Pocket Book</i>) that relate to the particular events occurring in the story at that time. This is a great way of underlining the significance of that wedding present to the storyline.
The narrative quickly changes from character to character which, although helping to keep the pace of the novel, can sometimes be a little confusing. It also made it difficult to get into the story at the beginning. Sometimes it took a lot of concentration to follow the text and those with minds that easily wander may constantly find themselves suddenly reading from a different point of view without having noticed the change over.
Winspear’s grandfather was a soldier in the trenches during the Great War and so it seems likely that some of the scenes may be based on his experiences. If that is the case then it can be believed that <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is as accurate as can be in terms of the war and life on the front lines. Winspear also does not attempt to gloss over any of the war horrors, therefore does not create the unlikely “and they all lived happily ever after” ending that other writers of war stories have done in the past.
Those interested in war themes may be particularly interested in this book, especially as this year (2014) is the anniversary of the Great War. <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is a piece of literature to add to the mountain of media coverage of the commemoration of the war.
British author Jacqueline Winspear states in the letter from the author at the front of the book that the idea for this novel came from a second hand copy of a book titled <i>The Woman’s Book</i> by Florence B Jack (1911) containing an inscription revealing that it was presented as a gift to a woman on her wedding day in July 1914. The story within </i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is Winspear’s imaginings about who that woman was and what her life was like.
The book focuses primarily on four characters, the main being Kezia Brissenden née Marchant who receives the gift <i>The Woman’s Book</i> from a close friend, Dorothy “Thea”, who so happens to be the older sister of her new husband, Tom. The book was not a particularly kind gift as it emphasized Kezia’s upbringing and who, due to her father being a reverend and employer of maids and cooks, had never produced her own meal in her life nor had any experience with running a household, let alone a farm – her new home.
Whilst Kezia determinedly throws herself into her new role, showing her love for Tom through the food she learns to cook, Thea, living in London, is drifting away from their friendship. With the possibility of war on the horizon, Thea joins a pacifist movement, which is somewhat ironic as she was once involved with the suffragettes. On the other hand, once war is declared, Tom decides to enlist in the army as does neighbour, Edmund Hawkes, a man who is rather envious of Tom and his lovely wife. The reader receives two different perspectives of the terrors of war from these characters, but then also another, surprisingly, from Thea who rejects pacifism and goes out to France to help in anyway she can. This leaves Kezia at home alone with the effects the war has on Britain.
The love between Kezia and Tom is emphasized through the letters they send each other. Both are lying about their situations by trying to convince the other that they are better off than they really are. The thing that keeps them both going are Kezia’s descriptions of her fictional meals that she prepares for Tom’s dinner, describing in great detail the preparation and taste of the food.
Each chapter begins with a quote from <i>The Woman’s Book</i> (and later <i>Infantry Training</i> and <i>Field Service Pocket Book</i>) that relate to the particular events occurring in the story at that time. This is a great way of underlining the significance of that wedding present to the storyline.
The narrative quickly changes from character to character which, although helping to keep the pace of the novel, can sometimes be a little confusing. It also made it difficult to get into the story at the beginning. Sometimes it took a lot of concentration to follow the text and those with minds that easily wander may constantly find themselves suddenly reading from a different point of view without having noticed the change over.
Winspear’s grandfather was a soldier in the trenches during the Great War and so it seems likely that some of the scenes may be based on his experiences. If that is the case then it can be believed that <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is as accurate as can be in terms of the war and life on the front lines. Winspear also does not attempt to gloss over any of the war horrors, therefore does not create the unlikely “and they all lived happily ever after” ending that other writers of war stories have done in the past.
Those interested in war themes may be particularly interested in this book, especially as this year (2014) is the anniversary of the Great War. <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is a piece of literature to add to the mountain of media coverage of the commemoration of the war.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) Feb 24, 2020