Search
Search results
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Becoming (2020) in Movies
May 19, 2020
Perhaps I'm biased but I love Michelle Obama. She's the type of woman I aspire to be. I've read her memoir and this documentary is just a deeper dive into who she is as a person, as a role model, as a mother, as a wife, as a black woman living in the United States. She is fierce and passionate and it radiates off the screen throughout this film.
Not only is this film beautifully shot, but the majority of its production team are women and I think that's equally as incredible. More than anything, this film provides some hope. We are in some unprecedented times in various ways, but she is confident we will persevere and I believe her.
Michelle Obama is a gift and it's incredible to watch her in this film.
Not only is this film beautifully shot, but the majority of its production team are women and I think that's equally as incredible. More than anything, this film provides some hope. We are in some unprecedented times in various ways, but she is confident we will persevere and I believe her.
Michelle Obama is a gift and it's incredible to watch her in this film.
Amy (7 KP) rated Goddess of Troy in Books
Jan 17, 2018 (Updated Jan 17, 2018)
Terrible. Total destruction.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The premise is one that P.C. Cast recycles throughout her work which is of taking modern women and dropping them into the worlds of myth and magic.
A brilliant idea, occasionally well done in her other novels...not unfortunately for this one.
The problem begins with the plot the goddesses send the women back to end the war...okay, but why not do it themselves? The flimsy excuses just don't hold up. The plot is weakly manipulated and transparently executed to make the neccessity of the modern women going back possible.
Problem 2-is the blatant racism of making the indipendant modern black woman into a white slave girl.
Problem 3- problematic sex scenes which read as thinly disguised rape scenes. A male character is hypnotises and the main female character has sex with him....this is made okay by him giving her consent afterwards. Which is not how consent works. This book being intended for young women just becoming sexual is at best concerning and at most incredibly damaging whilst promoting male rape under the guise of female empowerment.
The dialogue when more old fashioned from the warriors is charming and engaging...from the modern women we are forced to deal with censored cringy curse words, way too much teenage level gossip, and not a smidge of maturity in sight...from grown ass women.
For thirty plus successful women the character profiles should have engaged and fascinated, unfortunately those profiles were ignored during in-story application and replaced with twittering, childish teens who giggle over the word penis and lose their minds over the most vacuous and senseless things.
The plot centres around a boring, romance, and changes the original relationship of Achilles and Patroclus from its canonical implied romance to one of cousins...this at best is a misguided deviation from the canonical Iliad relationship they had.
It could easily be read as a blatant attack and hideous misuse of the original content, that could given the sheer overwhelming heteronormaty we are forced to endure be at its worst an erasure of rare LGBT representation from historical content.
The relationships are forced, and their happy endings so saccharine it hurts to read.
The siege of Troy is horrifically rewritten to make the main female lead the deciding factor that ensured victory and removed nearly all canonical battle events.
Throughout the novel not much happens, and by time something does you just want the novel over with.
It doesn't read as mythology inspired, the myths and characters are used as cheap prop and staging whilst removing the deep themes, and messages that ensured their endurance throughout time.
The vocabulary is below pre-teen level, the grammar is sub-par, and the pacing and plotting absolutely abysmal.
How this book ever made it to print in this state is a large and curious mystery for me.
I cannot urge you to skip this book enough, Margaret George's 'Helen of Troy' is a far more valuable use of your time if you are in want of mythology inspired fantasy...and does so without annihilating the entire original stories.
A brilliant idea, occasionally well done in her other novels...not unfortunately for this one.
The problem begins with the plot the goddesses send the women back to end the war...okay, but why not do it themselves? The flimsy excuses just don't hold up. The plot is weakly manipulated and transparently executed to make the neccessity of the modern women going back possible.
Problem 2-is the blatant racism of making the indipendant modern black woman into a white slave girl.
Problem 3- problematic sex scenes which read as thinly disguised rape scenes. A male character is hypnotises and the main female character has sex with him....this is made okay by him giving her consent afterwards. Which is not how consent works. This book being intended for young women just becoming sexual is at best concerning and at most incredibly damaging whilst promoting male rape under the guise of female empowerment.
The dialogue when more old fashioned from the warriors is charming and engaging...from the modern women we are forced to deal with censored cringy curse words, way too much teenage level gossip, and not a smidge of maturity in sight...from grown ass women.
For thirty plus successful women the character profiles should have engaged and fascinated, unfortunately those profiles were ignored during in-story application and replaced with twittering, childish teens who giggle over the word penis and lose their minds over the most vacuous and senseless things.
The plot centres around a boring, romance, and changes the original relationship of Achilles and Patroclus from its canonical implied romance to one of cousins...this at best is a misguided deviation from the canonical Iliad relationship they had.
It could easily be read as a blatant attack and hideous misuse of the original content, that could given the sheer overwhelming heteronormaty we are forced to endure be at its worst an erasure of rare LGBT representation from historical content.
The relationships are forced, and their happy endings so saccharine it hurts to read.
The siege of Troy is horrifically rewritten to make the main female lead the deciding factor that ensured victory and removed nearly all canonical battle events.
Throughout the novel not much happens, and by time something does you just want the novel over with.
It doesn't read as mythology inspired, the myths and characters are used as cheap prop and staging whilst removing the deep themes, and messages that ensured their endurance throughout time.
The vocabulary is below pre-teen level, the grammar is sub-par, and the pacing and plotting absolutely abysmal.
How this book ever made it to print in this state is a large and curious mystery for me.
I cannot urge you to skip this book enough, Margaret George's 'Helen of Troy' is a far more valuable use of your time if you are in want of mythology inspired fantasy...and does so without annihilating the entire original stories.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Oct 6, 2021
Florence Pugh (2 more)
The free-fall sequence at the end.
Taskmaster before the mask comes off.
It's way too long. (3 more)
The Taskmaster changes are weak.
It's as if the characters are fighting over who gets to be the comedic relief.
Familiar storyline.
Espionage Exhaustion
Black Widow is a film explaining what Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) was up to in-between Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War. The film was originally set to be released in May of 2020, but was pushed back and had three different release dates thanks to COVID-19. Unfortunately, most completed films that sit on the shelf and are in limbo for over a year rarely live up to the anticipation. Black Widow is worthwhile for a few key action sequences and notable characters that steal the spotlight, but is otherwise a mostly forgettable superhero film.
Marketed as a superhero film, Black Widow is also a spy thriller. Johansson has stated that films such as Logan, Harrison Ford’s The Fugitive, and Terminator 2: Judgment Day were influences. After Civil War, Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) is on the hunt for Natasha Romanoff. Women like Natasha who have had similar training in a torturous training facility known as The Red Room are victims to brainwashing by a man named Dreykov (Ray Winstone), but a serum ends up in Natasha’s hands that can break Dreykov’s brainwashing. Natasha begins searching for The Red Room and Dreykov, which also has her crossing paths with other spies that posed as her family members; her “sister” Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh), her “father” Alexai Shostakov (David Harbour), and her “mother” Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz).
The biggest selling point for Black Widow is that it’s a mostly female cast in front of and behind the camera. The film is directed by Cate Shortland and Black Widow is her first big budget feature. It’s also co-written by female screenwriter Jac Schaeffer (uncredited co-screenwriter of Captain Marvel) and Ned Benson (director of The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby).
Taskmaster is cool in the film until you realize the character has been altered from his comic book origins. This isn’t uncommon in the MCU or even other live-action superhero adaptations, but what the character has become in the film will be received with mixed results. In the comics, Taskmaster’s real identity is Anthony Masters and he’s a mercenary not unlike Deadpool (the two have fought together and against each other). Copying fighting styles and weapon techniques is similar to the film, but it’s all thanks to his incredible memory and photographic reflexes.
The character is altered to fit the story in the Black Widow film. It’s not necessarily a bad thing as it gives a bigger purpose for the character since it suddenly becomes a major part of Natasha’s storyline, but how the character evolves over the course of the film seems to almost relieve Natasha of her past sins rather than continue to serve as a catalyst. Taskmaster is generally involved in some of the best hand-to-hand combat sequences, but seems to be left hanging by the end of the film. We could see the character again, but whether or not the desire is there to see Taskmaster return is debatable.
The free-fall sequence that has been teased in the trailers is Black Widow’s most unique source of action. There’s exploding elements and falling debris, Natasha trying to save someone’s life, and Taskmaster thrown in attempting to mess up whatever she has planned; plus a bunch of goons bringing up the rear that will obviously be taken out in peak fashion. The sequence is like a duel to the death taking place on the edge of a volcano that’s about to erupt. It’s on the verge of being overkill, but is just awesome enough to trigger all of the adrenaline in your body.
Kevin Feige apparently wanted an equal amount of screen time for both Natasha and Yelena. With the after-credits sequence, Natasha being very dead after the events of Infinity War, and the reports that Yelena may be the new Black Widow, she’s essentially the star of the film and for good reason. The character begins as an individual with a chip on her shoulder from someone from her past, but Florence Pugh is able to add humor and empathy with her performance. Yelena has the best one-liners in the film (“That would be a cool way to die,”) and is essentially the best source of comedic relief (i.e. her hysterectomy rant), as well. She is the one character in the film you’d want to see more of after Black Widow ends.
The storyline of Black Widow doesn’t feel like anything you haven’t experienced cinematically before, especially within the confines of the MCU. An evil man is responsible for pulling the strings of a bunch of women that would kick his ass otherwise. Unfortunately, Ray Winstone doesn’t feel all that intimidating as Dreykov since he doesn’t do much besides talk in Black Widow. The point is made in the film that is all there’s really needed of the character, but Dreykov’s biggest weapon is his mouth. However, his verbal skills don’t seem advantageous enough to make him such a threat let alone keep him alive for over 20 years.
It also feels like every MCU film has its on-screen characters competing over who can get the most laughs; this is something that only got worse after Thor: Ragnarok proved to be a success. Marvel films are already so formulaic with most villains being introduced and killed within the confines of a single film. Natasha’s spy family all feel like minor extensions of herself. Rachel Weisz, despite not aging a day in nearly 30 years, is forgettable as Melina. David Harbour is essentially his character from Stranger things cosplaying as Mr. Incredible with a Russian accent. Even Florence Pugh’s Yelena Belova character is basically a blonde younger version of Natasha even though they’re not related by blood.
Black Widow clocks in at over two hours and it feels like a film that could have been edited down. Witnessing the events of a dysfunctional spy family who then spend good chunks of the film reminiscing about those moments the audience has already seen is redundant storytelling that feels like nothing more than filler.
Black Widow is worth seeing for Florence Pugh, the free-fall action sequence, and anything involving Taskmaster before it’s revealed who is under the mask. Everything else about Black Widow feels like it was done better by the films it was supposedly influenced by and mostly feels like a diluted imitation of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It’s fantastic that women are getting more opportunities in big summer blockbusters like this one, but it’s also disheartening since their filmmaking skills are shackled to formulaic superfluity that obviously stands in the way of creating extraordinary cinema.
Marketed as a superhero film, Black Widow is also a spy thriller. Johansson has stated that films such as Logan, Harrison Ford’s The Fugitive, and Terminator 2: Judgment Day were influences. After Civil War, Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) is on the hunt for Natasha Romanoff. Women like Natasha who have had similar training in a torturous training facility known as The Red Room are victims to brainwashing by a man named Dreykov (Ray Winstone), but a serum ends up in Natasha’s hands that can break Dreykov’s brainwashing. Natasha begins searching for The Red Room and Dreykov, which also has her crossing paths with other spies that posed as her family members; her “sister” Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh), her “father” Alexai Shostakov (David Harbour), and her “mother” Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz).
The biggest selling point for Black Widow is that it’s a mostly female cast in front of and behind the camera. The film is directed by Cate Shortland and Black Widow is her first big budget feature. It’s also co-written by female screenwriter Jac Schaeffer (uncredited co-screenwriter of Captain Marvel) and Ned Benson (director of The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby).
Taskmaster is cool in the film until you realize the character has been altered from his comic book origins. This isn’t uncommon in the MCU or even other live-action superhero adaptations, but what the character has become in the film will be received with mixed results. In the comics, Taskmaster’s real identity is Anthony Masters and he’s a mercenary not unlike Deadpool (the two have fought together and against each other). Copying fighting styles and weapon techniques is similar to the film, but it’s all thanks to his incredible memory and photographic reflexes.
The character is altered to fit the story in the Black Widow film. It’s not necessarily a bad thing as it gives a bigger purpose for the character since it suddenly becomes a major part of Natasha’s storyline, but how the character evolves over the course of the film seems to almost relieve Natasha of her past sins rather than continue to serve as a catalyst. Taskmaster is generally involved in some of the best hand-to-hand combat sequences, but seems to be left hanging by the end of the film. We could see the character again, but whether or not the desire is there to see Taskmaster return is debatable.
The free-fall sequence that has been teased in the trailers is Black Widow’s most unique source of action. There’s exploding elements and falling debris, Natasha trying to save someone’s life, and Taskmaster thrown in attempting to mess up whatever she has planned; plus a bunch of goons bringing up the rear that will obviously be taken out in peak fashion. The sequence is like a duel to the death taking place on the edge of a volcano that’s about to erupt. It’s on the verge of being overkill, but is just awesome enough to trigger all of the adrenaline in your body.
Kevin Feige apparently wanted an equal amount of screen time for both Natasha and Yelena. With the after-credits sequence, Natasha being very dead after the events of Infinity War, and the reports that Yelena may be the new Black Widow, she’s essentially the star of the film and for good reason. The character begins as an individual with a chip on her shoulder from someone from her past, but Florence Pugh is able to add humor and empathy with her performance. Yelena has the best one-liners in the film (“That would be a cool way to die,”) and is essentially the best source of comedic relief (i.e. her hysterectomy rant), as well. She is the one character in the film you’d want to see more of after Black Widow ends.
The storyline of Black Widow doesn’t feel like anything you haven’t experienced cinematically before, especially within the confines of the MCU. An evil man is responsible for pulling the strings of a bunch of women that would kick his ass otherwise. Unfortunately, Ray Winstone doesn’t feel all that intimidating as Dreykov since he doesn’t do much besides talk in Black Widow. The point is made in the film that is all there’s really needed of the character, but Dreykov’s biggest weapon is his mouth. However, his verbal skills don’t seem advantageous enough to make him such a threat let alone keep him alive for over 20 years.
It also feels like every MCU film has its on-screen characters competing over who can get the most laughs; this is something that only got worse after Thor: Ragnarok proved to be a success. Marvel films are already so formulaic with most villains being introduced and killed within the confines of a single film. Natasha’s spy family all feel like minor extensions of herself. Rachel Weisz, despite not aging a day in nearly 30 years, is forgettable as Melina. David Harbour is essentially his character from Stranger things cosplaying as Mr. Incredible with a Russian accent. Even Florence Pugh’s Yelena Belova character is basically a blonde younger version of Natasha even though they’re not related by blood.
Black Widow clocks in at over two hours and it feels like a film that could have been edited down. Witnessing the events of a dysfunctional spy family who then spend good chunks of the film reminiscing about those moments the audience has already seen is redundant storytelling that feels like nothing more than filler.
Black Widow is worth seeing for Florence Pugh, the free-fall action sequence, and anything involving Taskmaster before it’s revealed who is under the mask. Everything else about Black Widow feels like it was done better by the films it was supposedly influenced by and mostly feels like a diluted imitation of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It’s fantastic that women are getting more opportunities in big summer blockbusters like this one, but it’s also disheartening since their filmmaking skills are shackled to formulaic superfluity that obviously stands in the way of creating extraordinary cinema.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 19, 2021
A Winning Return for the MCU
The Marvel Cinematic Universe is back!
With the much delayed premiere of BLACK WIDOW, the MCU returns with a fun romp that is part family drama, part action adventure - and all MCU.
Starring Scarlett Johansson, of course, as the titular character, BLACK WIDOW takes place after CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR and before AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR. Natasha Romanoff, aka Black Widow, teams up with her “other” family to stop a team of enemy assasins.
But, it’s not the plot that we care about in these types of movies, it’s the characters and the action. And this film brings both in abundance.
Let’s start with the characters - the 4 main “family” members - Johansson (Black Widow), Florence Pugh (Yelena), David Harbour (Alexei) and Rachel Weisz (Melina) are wonderful to spend time with. These are characters that I want to see on the screen and their interactions - though sometimes confrontational - is filled with friendship, respect and love. This is something that other “universes” don’t quite get as well as the MCU and it shows.
Johannson, of course, is terrific as Black Widow. She has this character down and if this is her last go around as this character, she’ll got out with her head held high. David Harbour (STRANGER THINGS) is the comic relief of this film as his (somewhat) overweight superhero RED GUARDIAN, tries to fit into his old costume (reminiscent of MR. INCREDIBLE) while Rachel Weisz (Oscar winner for THE CONSTANT GARDNER) is the grounding/realistic character.
But all 3 of these take a back seat to the terrific Florence Pugh (Oscar nominated for LITTLE WOMEN a few year’s back) as the “little sister” of Black Widow. She and Johannson have terrific chemistry together and the writers/directors give Pugh most of the good lines that will lead the audience to be won over by her character.
The only blemish I have in the performances of this film is Ray Winstone’s rather “average” performance as the main bad guy in this film. I don’t fault Winstone’s performance, I think that it is because the part is underwritten or, worst yet, an afterthought of the writers.
Director Cate Shortland (LORE) does a good job keeping the film moving while interspersing the family drama with the action and the humor at a brisk enough clip to keep your interest for the full 134 minutes of this film. It’s a good return to the MCU and one that will keep you coming back for more.
Which is EXACTLY what the MCU wishes you to do.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the much delayed premiere of BLACK WIDOW, the MCU returns with a fun romp that is part family drama, part action adventure - and all MCU.
Starring Scarlett Johansson, of course, as the titular character, BLACK WIDOW takes place after CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR and before AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR. Natasha Romanoff, aka Black Widow, teams up with her “other” family to stop a team of enemy assasins.
But, it’s not the plot that we care about in these types of movies, it’s the characters and the action. And this film brings both in abundance.
Let’s start with the characters - the 4 main “family” members - Johansson (Black Widow), Florence Pugh (Yelena), David Harbour (Alexei) and Rachel Weisz (Melina) are wonderful to spend time with. These are characters that I want to see on the screen and their interactions - though sometimes confrontational - is filled with friendship, respect and love. This is something that other “universes” don’t quite get as well as the MCU and it shows.
Johannson, of course, is terrific as Black Widow. She has this character down and if this is her last go around as this character, she’ll got out with her head held high. David Harbour (STRANGER THINGS) is the comic relief of this film as his (somewhat) overweight superhero RED GUARDIAN, tries to fit into his old costume (reminiscent of MR. INCREDIBLE) while Rachel Weisz (Oscar winner for THE CONSTANT GARDNER) is the grounding/realistic character.
But all 3 of these take a back seat to the terrific Florence Pugh (Oscar nominated for LITTLE WOMEN a few year’s back) as the “little sister” of Black Widow. She and Johannson have terrific chemistry together and the writers/directors give Pugh most of the good lines that will lead the audience to be won over by her character.
The only blemish I have in the performances of this film is Ray Winstone’s rather “average” performance as the main bad guy in this film. I don’t fault Winstone’s performance, I think that it is because the part is underwritten or, worst yet, an afterthought of the writers.
Director Cate Shortland (LORE) does a good job keeping the film moving while interspersing the family drama with the action and the humor at a brisk enough clip to keep your interest for the full 134 minutes of this film. It’s a good return to the MCU and one that will keep you coming back for more.
Which is EXACTLY what the MCU wishes you to do.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Non-fiction isn't usually my 'cup of tea', so I started this with an element of trepidation. I needn't have worried. It's like listening to a more experienced friend telling you what they've done with their life (it would be a long chat, obviously).
From Michelle Obama's poor start in life, via her mother and father's interventions (actually, more her mother's) in her education and the sacrifices they made to give her the best education they could afford, to meeting Barack, getting married, having children, supporting his political life, all the while working herself. And she enjoyed her work. She's a strong woman. She gives an insight to the difficulties for black men and women in daily life, at academic institutions, and in work - especially those which are white dominated (which appears to be the majority).
She just comes across as an extremely likeable person. It was a fascinating book, and I really enjoyed it.
From Michelle Obama's poor start in life, via her mother and father's interventions (actually, more her mother's) in her education and the sacrifices they made to give her the best education they could afford, to meeting Barack, getting married, having children, supporting his political life, all the while working herself. And she enjoyed her work. She's a strong woman. She gives an insight to the difficulties for black men and women in daily life, at academic institutions, and in work - especially those which are white dominated (which appears to be the majority).
She just comes across as an extremely likeable person. It was a fascinating book, and I really enjoyed it.
saheffernan (157 KP) rated Such a Fun Age in Books
Mar 24, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
This book had a topic that had drawn me in and I had high hopes for. Halfway through the book it seemed as if I had started reading an almost entirely different book. The dialogue and parts of the story had seemed to fall apart.
The only character I cared about only partially was Emira and her charge Briar. They had a cute relationship that did seem to grow. That however is the only part of the story that had growth. Alix had a white savior complex that was shown again and again leaving me feel disgusted while reading. After accusing her ex boyfriend from high school and Emira's current boyfriend of fetishizing black people and culture. The story then became about a successful women throwing everything away to get back at her high school boyfriend instead of the topic in which the book started out with.
In the end it just left me feeling gross, and sad for how these people had acted.
The only character I cared about only partially was Emira and her charge Briar. They had a cute relationship that did seem to grow. That however is the only part of the story that had growth. Alix had a white savior complex that was shown again and again leaving me feel disgusted while reading. After accusing her ex boyfriend from high school and Emira's current boyfriend of fetishizing black people and culture. The story then became about a successful women throwing everything away to get back at her high school boyfriend instead of the topic in which the book started out with.
In the end it just left me feeling gross, and sad for how these people had acted.
Beth Ditto recommended ASouthBronxStory by ESG in Music (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Merissa (11731 KP) rated War of Gods Box Set (War of Gods #1-4) in Books
Nov 5, 2017
War of Gods Box Set (War of Gods #1-4) by Lizzy Ford
War of Gods Box Set features the first four books in this series by Lizzy Ford. I understand there is a spin-off featuring at least Xander, but I'm not sure about the rest of the characters. I had previously read Danian's Oracle and couldn't wait to continue with this series. I wasn't disappointed! The female characters are strong in their own right, and not afraid to stand up to the male in their lives. The men are stubborn and opinionated, but tamed (sorted of) by their women. The stories all link up, so I would recommend that you read them as a series, just so that you don't get confused with what is going on, or what has gone on before. The writing is smooth in most places, but sometimes felt a bit jerky when it came to the love scenes that weren't written. Instead of fading to black, they abruptly cut to black, and then to the following morning. This wasn't a big issue, it just felt more obvious considering how smooth the rest of the writing was.
I loved Damian's Oracle and The Grey God. Whilst I didn't 'love' the others, I still thoroughly enjoyed them! I have no hesitation in recommending this series for all those who love feisty females and macho males.
* Verified Purchase ~ August 2013 *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
I loved Damian's Oracle and The Grey God. Whilst I didn't 'love' the others, I still thoroughly enjoyed them! I have no hesitation in recommending this series for all those who love feisty females and macho males.
* Verified Purchase ~ August 2013 *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!