Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated In Fabric (2018) in Movies
Feb 29, 2020
Verdict: Weird
Story: In Fabric starts as we meet divorced mother Sheila (Jean-Baptiste) who is seeing her son Vince (Ayeh) prepare for college with his muse Gwen (Christie) slowly taking over the house, Sheila is looking for love in the personal ads with her needing to by a brand-new dress.
Soon after wearing the dress for the first time, Sheila notices strange things happening around the house as the tensions between Shelia and Gwen continue to rise. Shelia’s life gets turned upside down, which only escalates the more she investigates the original model of the dress.
Thoughts on In Fabric
Characters – Sheila is a divorced single mother who works as a banker, she is trying to move on with her life, as her son is about to be moving on with his life, she is gets a new dress, which only starts to increase the troubles in her life. Gwen is the older woman dating Sheila’s teenage son, she is slowly taking over the house being very disturbing with the tension filled interaction with Sheila. Reg is on a stage-do which sees him get the dress to wear, he is preparing for his own wedding, starting to see his own life spiral out of control, with Babs being the wife-to-be that is still preparing the wedding.
Performances – Marianne Jean-Baptiste is great for her part of the film, this is mainly because the film is split into two stories with eh dress, Marianne has the first one and shows the struggles she would be experiencing. When it comes to the rest of the cast, it does feel too late into the movie to get truly invested in the second set of actors story.
Story – The story here follows two different people that come in contact with a mysterious dress that has its own abilities to ruin their lives, we are left to guess just what is causing the pain to happen and why this dress is acting the same way around people. This story is flat out weird to follow, mostly because we have two different stories that might well be connected, they are separate enough to leave us with different ideas for each family to deal with. The story doesn’t seem to give us enough answers about the dress itself and with on fleeting images of the store it came from, which only ends up leaving us feel like we could have had more from the story.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy in the film comes from just how outside the box the idea is, while the horror comes from seeing how the dress acts and what it causes to people’s lives.
Settings – The film tries to keep the locations down to everyday ones, be it the two homes, the store or the employment locations, it shows how the weird events of the characters lives happen without anything needing to come from outside the box.
Special Effects – The effects are used well through the film as they show different levels of damage being caused.
Scene of the Movie – The fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough behind the mystery of the dress.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that can be described with one key world, weird, it is filled with strange moments that only leave us with more questions than answers.
Overall: Very Strange.
Story: In Fabric starts as we meet divorced mother Sheila (Jean-Baptiste) who is seeing her son Vince (Ayeh) prepare for college with his muse Gwen (Christie) slowly taking over the house, Sheila is looking for love in the personal ads with her needing to by a brand-new dress.
Soon after wearing the dress for the first time, Sheila notices strange things happening around the house as the tensions between Shelia and Gwen continue to rise. Shelia’s life gets turned upside down, which only escalates the more she investigates the original model of the dress.
Thoughts on In Fabric
Characters – Sheila is a divorced single mother who works as a banker, she is trying to move on with her life, as her son is about to be moving on with his life, she is gets a new dress, which only starts to increase the troubles in her life. Gwen is the older woman dating Sheila’s teenage son, she is slowly taking over the house being very disturbing with the tension filled interaction with Sheila. Reg is on a stage-do which sees him get the dress to wear, he is preparing for his own wedding, starting to see his own life spiral out of control, with Babs being the wife-to-be that is still preparing the wedding.
Performances – Marianne Jean-Baptiste is great for her part of the film, this is mainly because the film is split into two stories with eh dress, Marianne has the first one and shows the struggles she would be experiencing. When it comes to the rest of the cast, it does feel too late into the movie to get truly invested in the second set of actors story.
Story – The story here follows two different people that come in contact with a mysterious dress that has its own abilities to ruin their lives, we are left to guess just what is causing the pain to happen and why this dress is acting the same way around people. This story is flat out weird to follow, mostly because we have two different stories that might well be connected, they are separate enough to leave us with different ideas for each family to deal with. The story doesn’t seem to give us enough answers about the dress itself and with on fleeting images of the store it came from, which only ends up leaving us feel like we could have had more from the story.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy in the film comes from just how outside the box the idea is, while the horror comes from seeing how the dress acts and what it causes to people’s lives.
Settings – The film tries to keep the locations down to everyday ones, be it the two homes, the store or the employment locations, it shows how the weird events of the characters lives happen without anything needing to come from outside the box.
Special Effects – The effects are used well through the film as they show different levels of damage being caused.
Scene of the Movie – The fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough behind the mystery of the dress.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that can be described with one key world, weird, it is filled with strange moments that only leave us with more questions than answers.
Overall: Very Strange.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#8 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3099365981">The Shattering: Prelude to Cataclysm</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-51.png"/>;
The The Shattering: Prelude to Cataclysm by Christie Golden is the eighth book in the World of Warcraft series. The series covers the lore of the characters that are featured in the popular video game World of Warcraft. This is the first book of the series I have read, as they can be read as standalones too. After reading it, I definitely want to read the rest of the series as well!
I received this book as a Christmas gift from my boyfriend, as we both enjoy the World of Warcraft video game. We played together for a while, but then stopped playing retail and started to play again when the Classic WoW came out. I am familiar with most of the lore in the game, but reading a full book about something that happens during this game (in this case - Cataclysm) is a whole new level of epic!
The Shattering has a focus on the events that happen before the Cataclysm, and the events that actually lead to it, from various character's perspectives, from both the Horde and the Alliance. We get to see the character's perspectives, choices and how even small things have a big impact on what's about to happen.
Get ready to meet some legendary characters:
<b>Thrall, the Shaman</b>
When Thrall discovers the elements no longer heed the Shaman's call, he has to travel back to his birth place to seek answers, while leaving the leadership of the Horde with the orcs.
<b><i>"Nature has its own rhythms and reasons. It does not adapt to suit us - we must change to accommodate it."</i></b>
<b>Garrosh, the Orc</b>
Great warrior with a fiery attitude, Garrosh is now in charge of the Horde while Thrall is away. Then the hostility with the Alliance starts to grow. Garrosh's approach is different that what Thrall would have done, and things are about to get more heated.
<b><i>"But it is a work of a leader to hold all possibilities, even the unpleasant - even the unthinkable."</i></b>
<b>Prince Anduin</b>
Anduin finds himself conflicted about who he is and what his purpose is, when a new adventure starts for him. With the help of Jaina and other amazing characters, he slowly begins to realise where he truly belongs.
The story was amazingly written and very powerful! From the very first chapter, I was invested in the characters and the plot. I kept turning page after page until I finished the book. The characters are very much alive and real. They were all different in their own way which is quite hard to accomplish with so many characters involved. I think what I loved the most was how each character had their own purpose, choices to make and a lesson to learn. Even when wrong choices were made, the characters had their own valid reasoning behind their choices.
<b>I highly recommend The Shattering if you are a fan of World of Warcraft, but also if you love adventure books and stories that tackle the battle between good and evil.</b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#8 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3099365981">The Shattering: Prelude to Cataclysm</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-51.png"/>;
The The Shattering: Prelude to Cataclysm by Christie Golden is the eighth book in the World of Warcraft series. The series covers the lore of the characters that are featured in the popular video game World of Warcraft. This is the first book of the series I have read, as they can be read as standalones too. After reading it, I definitely want to read the rest of the series as well!
I received this book as a Christmas gift from my boyfriend, as we both enjoy the World of Warcraft video game. We played together for a while, but then stopped playing retail and started to play again when the Classic WoW came out. I am familiar with most of the lore in the game, but reading a full book about something that happens during this game (in this case - Cataclysm) is a whole new level of epic!
The Shattering has a focus on the events that happen before the Cataclysm, and the events that actually lead to it, from various character's perspectives, from both the Horde and the Alliance. We get to see the character's perspectives, choices and how even small things have a big impact on what's about to happen.
Get ready to meet some legendary characters:
<b>Thrall, the Shaman</b>
When Thrall discovers the elements no longer heed the Shaman's call, he has to travel back to his birth place to seek answers, while leaving the leadership of the Horde with the orcs.
<b><i>"Nature has its own rhythms and reasons. It does not adapt to suit us - we must change to accommodate it."</i></b>
<b>Garrosh, the Orc</b>
Great warrior with a fiery attitude, Garrosh is now in charge of the Horde while Thrall is away. Then the hostility with the Alliance starts to grow. Garrosh's approach is different that what Thrall would have done, and things are about to get more heated.
<b><i>"But it is a work of a leader to hold all possibilities, even the unpleasant - even the unthinkable."</i></b>
<b>Prince Anduin</b>
Anduin finds himself conflicted about who he is and what his purpose is, when a new adventure starts for him. With the help of Jaina and other amazing characters, he slowly begins to realise where he truly belongs.
The story was amazingly written and very powerful! From the very first chapter, I was invested in the characters and the plot. I kept turning page after page until I finished the book. The characters are very much alive and real. They were all different in their own way which is quite hard to accomplish with so many characters involved. I think what I loved the most was how each character had their own purpose, choices to make and a lesson to learn. Even when wrong choices were made, the characters had their own valid reasoning behind their choices.
<b>I highly recommend The Shattering if you are a fan of World of Warcraft, but also if you love adventure books and stories that tackle the battle between good and evil.</b>
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Mayhawke (97 KP) rated Bats In The Belfry in Books
Feb 26, 2018 (Updated Feb 27, 2018)
A Cosy Crime sleeper worthy of resurrection
I’m a huge fan of Cosy Crime, I cut my grown-up reading teeth on Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers, so it should be no surprise that I’m a big fan of the British Library’s inspired decision to republish lost Golden Age novels.
Fifty-one re-issues in and I’m still stunned at the number of authors who had stellar careers as crime writers, were fully inducted members of the Detection Club, and had publication lists to rival Christie’s but who, within a few years of their deaths, had just vanished from the pantheon classic crime novelists.
Such a writer was E.C.R.Lorac, author of Bats In The Belfry. In his introduction Martin Edwards describes the pseudonymous Lorac (real name Edith Caroline Rivett) as enjoying a “low-key career spanning more than a quarter of a century.” It also produced a catalogue of over seventy novels, yet, cosy crime fan that I am I had never heard of her until her book turned up on my work intranet.
Bats, British Library’s inaugural Crime Classic for 2018, is also the first of Lorac’s novels to be given the British Library treatment. It couldn’t have happened to a better book! One of the dangers of republishing books that have disappeared in the mists of time, at least if you are republishing them for the mass market, is that some of them will prove to have been ‘lost’ with good cause. Not that the writing need be poor or the plotting weak, but there are social aspects that can be critical to the development or fundamental premise of the story that change over the course of half a century. When that happens there is a danger that the reader will at best be disgruntled with a puzzle they were unlikely to be able to solve because they didn’t understand the clues they were being given, or, at worst, that the whole premise will seem beyond ludicrous to modern readers. Of the twenty or so BLCC’s I have read only one has fallen into the latter category, and whilst there have been one or two which were a bit plodding thanks to such issues they have largely been a pleasure to read, and I have been able to joyfully pit my wits against the authors’ intrinsic challenge to solve the mystery before the denouement.
Bats in the Belfry most definitely falls into this class of Crime Classic, so much so that it’s a surprise to find from Edwards that it was a bit of a non-starter when it was first published in 1937.
A failing writer, his actress wife, his ward and a selection of friends are collected one evening following the funeral of the writer’s cousin. Shortly thereafter the writer himself has vanished, his suitcase and passport left in a darkly sinister studio known variously as The Belfry, and The Morgue. The story is as dark and twisty as any you could hope for from a member of the Detection Club, and it plays nicely on themes of the time. Broken marriages, financially emasculated men, and the requisite ‘strange foreign man’ all appear, and even aarchaeology gets a look in. As the main characters sit and incautiously discuss ways to bump off someone and hide the body there is brief verbal tussle over the usefulness – and even existence of – dene holes, ancient subterranean storage areas that provided writers of the time with endless possibilities, most notably in Sayers’ The Nine Tailors. Lorac’s plotting is flawless and deceptively simplistic, and she leads you back and forth from suspect to suspect. She is brutally unsympathetic to her characters, and her writing bundles you along until you finally reach the conclusion, to discover how good you are at detecting. Or not.
Fifty-one re-issues in and I’m still stunned at the number of authors who had stellar careers as crime writers, were fully inducted members of the Detection Club, and had publication lists to rival Christie’s but who, within a few years of their deaths, had just vanished from the pantheon classic crime novelists.
Such a writer was E.C.R.Lorac, author of Bats In The Belfry. In his introduction Martin Edwards describes the pseudonymous Lorac (real name Edith Caroline Rivett) as enjoying a “low-key career spanning more than a quarter of a century.” It also produced a catalogue of over seventy novels, yet, cosy crime fan that I am I had never heard of her until her book turned up on my work intranet.
Bats, British Library’s inaugural Crime Classic for 2018, is also the first of Lorac’s novels to be given the British Library treatment. It couldn’t have happened to a better book! One of the dangers of republishing books that have disappeared in the mists of time, at least if you are republishing them for the mass market, is that some of them will prove to have been ‘lost’ with good cause. Not that the writing need be poor or the plotting weak, but there are social aspects that can be critical to the development or fundamental premise of the story that change over the course of half a century. When that happens there is a danger that the reader will at best be disgruntled with a puzzle they were unlikely to be able to solve because they didn’t understand the clues they were being given, or, at worst, that the whole premise will seem beyond ludicrous to modern readers. Of the twenty or so BLCC’s I have read only one has fallen into the latter category, and whilst there have been one or two which were a bit plodding thanks to such issues they have largely been a pleasure to read, and I have been able to joyfully pit my wits against the authors’ intrinsic challenge to solve the mystery before the denouement.
Bats in the Belfry most definitely falls into this class of Crime Classic, so much so that it’s a surprise to find from Edwards that it was a bit of a non-starter when it was first published in 1937.
A failing writer, his actress wife, his ward and a selection of friends are collected one evening following the funeral of the writer’s cousin. Shortly thereafter the writer himself has vanished, his suitcase and passport left in a darkly sinister studio known variously as The Belfry, and The Morgue. The story is as dark and twisty as any you could hope for from a member of the Detection Club, and it plays nicely on themes of the time. Broken marriages, financially emasculated men, and the requisite ‘strange foreign man’ all appear, and even aarchaeology gets a look in. As the main characters sit and incautiously discuss ways to bump off someone and hide the body there is brief verbal tussle over the usefulness – and even existence of – dene holes, ancient subterranean storage areas that provided writers of the time with endless possibilities, most notably in Sayers’ The Nine Tailors. Lorac’s plotting is flawless and deceptively simplistic, and she leads you back and forth from suspect to suspect. She is brutally unsympathetic to her characters, and her writing bundles you along until you finally reach the conclusion, to discover how good you are at detecting. Or not.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
If they were to give it a go, this movie should justifiably be Rian's redemption from the harshest of his previous critics. For this is a really entertaining film. I found myself smiling with glee through a sizable proportion of the running time.
Multi-millionaire crime-fiction author Harlan Thrombey (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) is celebrating his 85th birthday with three generations of his family in his "Cludo-like" mansion. But all is not well with the family harmonic and the next morning Harlan is found dead in his room by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas). Apparently, it's a suicide, but when private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene he starts turning over stones "oin seearch ov tha troooth" (sic) and dark secrets begin to emerge.
Key to success of this Agatha Christie-style movie is a dense portmanteau cast and a well-plotted script. Both are here present.
In terms of the cast, this is another candidate for the SAG Ensemble Cast award. For the cast is suitably stellar with Chris "Cap" Evans, Toni Collette, Michael Shannon, Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson vying for the top billing with Craig and Plummer. They bounce off each other joyously, with Collette taking my prize for top acting kudos. She's just deliciously over the top as the scheming hippy chick with the rasping voice and the cutting one-liners.
With a starring role is Cuban bombshell Ana de Armas, here notching down the glamour to play the plainly dressed nurse. But she has a magnetic screen presence and is perfectly cast as the girl at the heart of all the action. She has the doe-eyed innocence that Alfred Hitchcock was always looking for in his leading ladies. Interestingly, she is soon to appear with Craig again as Bond-girl Paloma in "No Time to Die".
Elsewhere in the cast are some interesting cameos: the family's lawyer is none other than Frank "Yoda" Oz; and the ancient security guard is M. Emmet Walsh, who has an amazing filmography going back to the late 60's.
Writer/director is clearly his 'thing'. But Rian Johnson here pulls off a neat trick with the script which is brilliantly twisty and turny and 100% entertaining. Although it's presented as cuts between the 'present time' and versions of the night in question, the whole doughnut is never entirely in view until the final reel. It's a satisfying story, and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny.
A nice plot point is the inability for young Marta to tell a lie without vomiting. Wouldn't the UK General Elections be Sooooo much more colourful if that was a general trait!!
I've only the one real criticism of the movie, and that's Daniel Craig's appalling Southern drawl. It's really quite distracting. Aside from some witty lines of dialogue ("What is this? CSI KFC?") nothing would have been lost to cast him as an urbane English detective instead. They could have slipped in some Brexit jokes instead! I appreciate Craig wants to distance himself from Bond somewhat. He did the same thing as Joe Bang in "Logan Lucky". But - sorry - it didn't really work for me then and it doesn't work now either.
In summary, this is a really fun movie that a whole family with older children (the rating is 12+) can go and enjoy together. There's limited violence; limited swearing and sexual innuendo; and no sex (save for the Hitler youth in the bathroom!). But there is a whole lot of sleuthing fun to be had. Bravo Mr Johnson, bravo! For that reason it comes with a bob-the-movie-man "Highly recommended" tag.
(For the full graphical review please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/04/one-manns-movies-film-review-knives-out-2019/).
Multi-millionaire crime-fiction author Harlan Thrombey (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) is celebrating his 85th birthday with three generations of his family in his "Cludo-like" mansion. But all is not well with the family harmonic and the next morning Harlan is found dead in his room by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas). Apparently, it's a suicide, but when private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene he starts turning over stones "oin seearch ov tha troooth" (sic) and dark secrets begin to emerge.
Key to success of this Agatha Christie-style movie is a dense portmanteau cast and a well-plotted script. Both are here present.
In terms of the cast, this is another candidate for the SAG Ensemble Cast award. For the cast is suitably stellar with Chris "Cap" Evans, Toni Collette, Michael Shannon, Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson vying for the top billing with Craig and Plummer. They bounce off each other joyously, with Collette taking my prize for top acting kudos. She's just deliciously over the top as the scheming hippy chick with the rasping voice and the cutting one-liners.
With a starring role is Cuban bombshell Ana de Armas, here notching down the glamour to play the plainly dressed nurse. But she has a magnetic screen presence and is perfectly cast as the girl at the heart of all the action. She has the doe-eyed innocence that Alfred Hitchcock was always looking for in his leading ladies. Interestingly, she is soon to appear with Craig again as Bond-girl Paloma in "No Time to Die".
Elsewhere in the cast are some interesting cameos: the family's lawyer is none other than Frank "Yoda" Oz; and the ancient security guard is M. Emmet Walsh, who has an amazing filmography going back to the late 60's.
Writer/director is clearly his 'thing'. But Rian Johnson here pulls off a neat trick with the script which is brilliantly twisty and turny and 100% entertaining. Although it's presented as cuts between the 'present time' and versions of the night in question, the whole doughnut is never entirely in view until the final reel. It's a satisfying story, and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny.
A nice plot point is the inability for young Marta to tell a lie without vomiting. Wouldn't the UK General Elections be Sooooo much more colourful if that was a general trait!!
I've only the one real criticism of the movie, and that's Daniel Craig's appalling Southern drawl. It's really quite distracting. Aside from some witty lines of dialogue ("What is this? CSI KFC?") nothing would have been lost to cast him as an urbane English detective instead. They could have slipped in some Brexit jokes instead! I appreciate Craig wants to distance himself from Bond somewhat. He did the same thing as Joe Bang in "Logan Lucky". But - sorry - it didn't really work for me then and it doesn't work now either.
In summary, this is a really fun movie that a whole family with older children (the rating is 12+) can go and enjoy together. There's limited violence; limited swearing and sexual innuendo; and no sex (save for the Hitler youth in the bathroom!). But there is a whole lot of sleuthing fun to be had. Bravo Mr Johnson, bravo! For that reason it comes with a bob-the-movie-man "Highly recommended" tag.
(For the full graphical review please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/04/one-manns-movies-film-review-knives-out-2019/).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020
Original and Quirky...enough
KNIVES OUT was one of the films I had circled on my calendar as a "must see". It seemed to be a perfect antidote to the CGI-Fest films that are very prevalent in the multi-plex today. So...when life got in the way and I couldn't get to this film for about a month, I tried (and succeeded) in not getting this movie spoiled for me in my various Social Media feeds.
And I'm glad I went to such lengths, for I found KNIVES OUT to be a truly original and entertaining film that kept me guessing throughout the length of the film - right up to the "big reveal."
So...if you haven't seen this film...stop reading this now...go see it...and come back.
Still here (or are you back)? Okay...let's continue...
Directed by Rian Johnson (known by many as the Director of THE LAST JEDI, but I think this movie owes more of it's heritage to his breakthrough film BRICK or his Sci-Fi action flick, LOOPER), KNIVES OUT is an old-fashioned, Agatha Christie-type murder mystery complete with an oddball Detective trying to figure out "whodunnit" that features an All-Star cast of suspects as well as an Oscar winning murder victim.
As I stated above, Johnson has traversed a murder mystery-type film before in his neo-noir homage BRICK, but in this film he really let's his wings fly as he plays, marvelously, with the drawing room murder mystery pastiche. Johnson wrote and directed this film and the twists and turns and originality of his vision is apparent on screen, playing with expectations without being too clever.
He has assembled an All-Star cast of actors playing interesting characters. Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Chris Evans, Toni Colette, Don Johnson and Jacob Trombley all bring star power and charisma to their roles and each one COULD have been the murderer. As often happens in these types of films, each one gets A scene to shine, but only the one "whodunnit" really gets to step out.
As the Law Enforcement on their trail, Lakeith Stanfield (GET OUT) and Noah Segan (LOOPER) play off each other well and they play off of Daniel Craig (James Bond, of course) very well. Craig plays Private Detective Benoit Blanc with some sort of Cajun-type accent that works more than it doesn't, I enjoyed his performance enough to find it charming and not annoying.
Special notice needs to be made of the performances of Christopher Plummer - as the murder victim (I'm not spoiling anything here, it's in the trailer) and Frank Oz (the famous Muppeteer and Director). Both are "old pros" who bring a grounding to the proceedings. Their performances are almost down to earth commentaries on the other characters/performances and they both helped out this film tremendously.
Finally, the film revolves around the journey that Ana de Armas' character, Maria Cabrera, is on in this film. She is the audience's eyes and ears into this story, having clues and plot points revealed to her as we, the audience, have them revealed to us. I fell in love with de Armas when she played Joi in BLADE RUNNER: 2049 and she is pleasant enough company here to search out this mystery with.
With all these pieces - and characters - to put together and move around, I did find that this film suffered a bit by "too much" and "too fast" at times that caused me not to care about certain people and circumstances (especially at the beginning), but that was quickly forgotten/forgiven as the film progressed and I was engrossed in the mystery - a mystery that I did not know how it was going to end.
And that, is unique and rare enough for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I'm glad I went to such lengths, for I found KNIVES OUT to be a truly original and entertaining film that kept me guessing throughout the length of the film - right up to the "big reveal."
So...if you haven't seen this film...stop reading this now...go see it...and come back.
Still here (or are you back)? Okay...let's continue...
Directed by Rian Johnson (known by many as the Director of THE LAST JEDI, but I think this movie owes more of it's heritage to his breakthrough film BRICK or his Sci-Fi action flick, LOOPER), KNIVES OUT is an old-fashioned, Agatha Christie-type murder mystery complete with an oddball Detective trying to figure out "whodunnit" that features an All-Star cast of suspects as well as an Oscar winning murder victim.
As I stated above, Johnson has traversed a murder mystery-type film before in his neo-noir homage BRICK, but in this film he really let's his wings fly as he plays, marvelously, with the drawing room murder mystery pastiche. Johnson wrote and directed this film and the twists and turns and originality of his vision is apparent on screen, playing with expectations without being too clever.
He has assembled an All-Star cast of actors playing interesting characters. Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Chris Evans, Toni Colette, Don Johnson and Jacob Trombley all bring star power and charisma to their roles and each one COULD have been the murderer. As often happens in these types of films, each one gets A scene to shine, but only the one "whodunnit" really gets to step out.
As the Law Enforcement on their trail, Lakeith Stanfield (GET OUT) and Noah Segan (LOOPER) play off each other well and they play off of Daniel Craig (James Bond, of course) very well. Craig plays Private Detective Benoit Blanc with some sort of Cajun-type accent that works more than it doesn't, I enjoyed his performance enough to find it charming and not annoying.
Special notice needs to be made of the performances of Christopher Plummer - as the murder victim (I'm not spoiling anything here, it's in the trailer) and Frank Oz (the famous Muppeteer and Director). Both are "old pros" who bring a grounding to the proceedings. Their performances are almost down to earth commentaries on the other characters/performances and they both helped out this film tremendously.
Finally, the film revolves around the journey that Ana de Armas' character, Maria Cabrera, is on in this film. She is the audience's eyes and ears into this story, having clues and plot points revealed to her as we, the audience, have them revealed to us. I fell in love with de Armas when she played Joi in BLADE RUNNER: 2049 and she is pleasant enough company here to search out this mystery with.
With all these pieces - and characters - to put together and move around, I did find that this film suffered a bit by "too much" and "too fast" at times that caused me not to care about certain people and circumstances (especially at the beginning), but that was quickly forgotten/forgiven as the film progressed and I was engrossed in the mystery - a mystery that I did not know how it was going to end.
And that, is unique and rare enough for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
If it’s not one of the most anticipated movies of all time, it is certainly way up there. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the thing that every Star Wars fanboy, including myself, fears. Will it be as good as the original trilogy, or will Disney and Bad Robot drop a deuce like many believe Lucas did with the prequel trilogy. Well, here is a spoiler free look from someone who has these fears.
Fret not, everyone. Abrams has done a magnificent job of continuing the Skywalker saga in Episode VII. And great news, there are no lens flares, at least none that I noticed. As I mentioned, this is spoiler free, but I will give you an idea of the overall plot.
Episode VII picks up 30 years after the end of Episode VI. The Emperor is dead, and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) began training a new generation of Jedi. But something went wrong and one of his students turned against him and destroyed the school. Blaming himself, Skywalker went into isolation. With Luke out of the picture, risen from the ashes of the Empire, the First Order, led by Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis), is trying to reclaim the power of the Empire. Knowing that Skywalker is their only threat, they are attempting to find him to eliminate him before he can join the Resistance’s fight against them. Daring Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) is attempting to find a map to Luke’s location, but is quickly interrupted by the First Order. He hides the map on his droid, BB-8, before being captured by the menacing force. And so sets off a chain of events to find Luke Skywalker by the Resistance and the First Order alike.
It’s no secret that many of the main cast is returning, including Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Leia (Carrie Fisher), Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew), See-Threepio (Anthony Daniels), and R2-D2 (Kenny Baker). We also have a slew of new characters such as the aforementioned Poe Dameron, Finn (John Boyega), Rey (Daisy Ridley), Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), Captain Phasma (Gwendoline Christie), General Hux (Domnall Gleeson), and Supreme Leader Snoke. The cast, both returning and new, blended really well together and had a great amount of charisma on the screen. There was the right amount of comedy, drama, and action in this movie, and the interaction between the characters just felt genuine. This movie definitely felt more like the original trilogy than the prequels did.
The soundtrack and effects were amazing. Right in line with what you would expect from a Star Wars movie, but as I mentioned to the studio rep as I was leaving the theater, the film didn’t try to go overboard with everything. So there was no feeling of over production as some felt from the prequels. And with John Williams doing the score again, you know it will have the same sound. He did a great job of blending in little melodies, or snipits of songs, that made reference to the previous movies at just the right moments.
All-in-all, it was a fantastic film that did not leave me disappointed. It shouldn’t leave you disappointed either. Now, it’s not without a few plot holes, and suspension of belief will help, but they are, for me any way, forgivable and I will leave it for you to discover them. At the end of the day, this is definitely the Star Wars film you are looking for. Go see it. See it multiple times. Give Disney and Bad Robot more reason to continue not only with the Skywalker saga, but also the other stories like next year’s Rogue One, young Han Solo and Chewie, or, one can only hope, the story of everyone’s favorite bounty hunter/orphan, Boba Fett.
Fret not, everyone. Abrams has done a magnificent job of continuing the Skywalker saga in Episode VII. And great news, there are no lens flares, at least none that I noticed. As I mentioned, this is spoiler free, but I will give you an idea of the overall plot.
Episode VII picks up 30 years after the end of Episode VI. The Emperor is dead, and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) began training a new generation of Jedi. But something went wrong and one of his students turned against him and destroyed the school. Blaming himself, Skywalker went into isolation. With Luke out of the picture, risen from the ashes of the Empire, the First Order, led by Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis), is trying to reclaim the power of the Empire. Knowing that Skywalker is their only threat, they are attempting to find him to eliminate him before he can join the Resistance’s fight against them. Daring Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) is attempting to find a map to Luke’s location, but is quickly interrupted by the First Order. He hides the map on his droid, BB-8, before being captured by the menacing force. And so sets off a chain of events to find Luke Skywalker by the Resistance and the First Order alike.
It’s no secret that many of the main cast is returning, including Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Leia (Carrie Fisher), Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew), See-Threepio (Anthony Daniels), and R2-D2 (Kenny Baker). We also have a slew of new characters such as the aforementioned Poe Dameron, Finn (John Boyega), Rey (Daisy Ridley), Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), Captain Phasma (Gwendoline Christie), General Hux (Domnall Gleeson), and Supreme Leader Snoke. The cast, both returning and new, blended really well together and had a great amount of charisma on the screen. There was the right amount of comedy, drama, and action in this movie, and the interaction between the characters just felt genuine. This movie definitely felt more like the original trilogy than the prequels did.
The soundtrack and effects were amazing. Right in line with what you would expect from a Star Wars movie, but as I mentioned to the studio rep as I was leaving the theater, the film didn’t try to go overboard with everything. So there was no feeling of over production as some felt from the prequels. And with John Williams doing the score again, you know it will have the same sound. He did a great job of blending in little melodies, or snipits of songs, that made reference to the previous movies at just the right moments.
All-in-all, it was a fantastic film that did not leave me disappointed. It shouldn’t leave you disappointed either. Now, it’s not without a few plot holes, and suspension of belief will help, but they are, for me any way, forgivable and I will leave it for you to discover them. At the end of the day, this is definitely the Star Wars film you are looking for. Go see it. See it multiple times. Give Disney and Bad Robot more reason to continue not only with the Skywalker saga, but also the other stories like next year’s Rogue One, young Han Solo and Chewie, or, one can only hope, the story of everyone’s favorite bounty hunter/orphan, Boba Fett.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2021
The fantastic ensemble cast (1 more)
Great directing and editing
Effortlessly stylish and entertaining
The Personal History of David Copperfield starts with the young man (Dev Patel) regaling a theatre audience with a reading of his autobiography. This immediately pitches him into witnessing his own birth to widowed single mother Clara (the wonderful Morfydd Clark, or "Saint Maud" fame). From there, Copperfield goes helter-skelter into a rollercoaster life encompassing workhouse-bottling poverty, fish-gutting and rich gentlemanly pursuits.
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
A gothic boarding school tale that falls flat
Rose Christie is nervous but excited when she's hired on as the new Head of Classics at Caldonbrae Hall, a boarding school for girls in Scotland. A renowned establishment for 150 years, Caldonbrae is a far step above Rose's current teaching gig and will offer a chance to help her mother, who is struggling with MS. Rose is the first external hire in over a decade, making her an immediate outsider, along with her youthful age. She quickly feels over her head at Caldonbrae, where the teachers and students alike seem to lord over her. But soon Rose realizes that everyone seems to be on to a secret, except her. Why did the last Classics teacher, Jane, leave so suddenly? As Rose learns more about Caldonbrae, she quickly realizes it is nothing like she expected.
"One way or another someone was going to get eaten alive here, Rose realized. She'd be damned if it was her."
I'm a sucker for boarding school stories, but this one did not live up to the promised hype for me. It grew on me a small bit by the end, but when I say this is a slow burning tale, I mean SLOW. I was incredibly tempted to "DNF" this book, but stuck with it, skimming or fast reading portions of it. The big twist, so to speak, doesn't come until halfway through (55% in fact). At that point, we have sat through lots of classics lessons and pontificating about Caldonbrae and gotten to know a lot of girls at the school.
Although, "getting to know" is probably generous, as there's a lack of character development throughout most of MADAM. There are a variety of girls at Caldonbrae thrust upon us, but I found it nearly impossible to keep many of them straight. (It doesn't help that the UK version of schooling is hard to follow, with thirds, fourths, and more tossed about, but rarely ages. Woe to us idiotic Americans!)
We know little about Rose, are offered a scarce backstory, and pieces about her father that are supposed to form her personality seem tossed in haphazardly. Instead she drove me crazy with her dithering and inability to make decisions. Most of the time I just wanted to shake her. She was in an impossible situation, perhaps, but she seemed unable to grasp anything for much of the book, or realize the seriousness of her circumstances.
I think MADAM was going for ominous and creepy--everything building up to its explosive ending (which is hinted at in the beginning pages), but it falls short. Instead, it seems more annoying and perplexing. When the twist is revealed, it's an interesting one, yes, but I couldn't help but question it, wonder how such a thing could be sustainable. MADAM just couldn't keep up the eerie tone it was trying for.
There's definite storytelling potential here, and I did find myself somewhat attached to a few of the girls by the end, when things pick up slightly. MADAM tries to align the classics (think tales of Medea and Antigone and such) with its boarding school girls, but often the tacked on tales of these mythical and classical women feel like unnecessary, added on pieces. It reaches too high, trying for a feminist angle, but falls short, with a fast ending that cannot possibly live up to all those classical, high-reaching aims.
"...she wondered how an establishment that promised to educate 'girls of the world' could somehow make its women feel so small."
Overall, there's a lot going on in MADAM, but it just didn't gel for me. I couldn't root for Rose for most of the novel, and the classic pieces inserted into the plot didn't work. There were sparks I enjoyed, but overall, this wasn't a favorite. 2.5 stars.
"One way or another someone was going to get eaten alive here, Rose realized. She'd be damned if it was her."
I'm a sucker for boarding school stories, but this one did not live up to the promised hype for me. It grew on me a small bit by the end, but when I say this is a slow burning tale, I mean SLOW. I was incredibly tempted to "DNF" this book, but stuck with it, skimming or fast reading portions of it. The big twist, so to speak, doesn't come until halfway through (55% in fact). At that point, we have sat through lots of classics lessons and pontificating about Caldonbrae and gotten to know a lot of girls at the school.
Although, "getting to know" is probably generous, as there's a lack of character development throughout most of MADAM. There are a variety of girls at Caldonbrae thrust upon us, but I found it nearly impossible to keep many of them straight. (It doesn't help that the UK version of schooling is hard to follow, with thirds, fourths, and more tossed about, but rarely ages. Woe to us idiotic Americans!)
We know little about Rose, are offered a scarce backstory, and pieces about her father that are supposed to form her personality seem tossed in haphazardly. Instead she drove me crazy with her dithering and inability to make decisions. Most of the time I just wanted to shake her. She was in an impossible situation, perhaps, but she seemed unable to grasp anything for much of the book, or realize the seriousness of her circumstances.
I think MADAM was going for ominous and creepy--everything building up to its explosive ending (which is hinted at in the beginning pages), but it falls short. Instead, it seems more annoying and perplexing. When the twist is revealed, it's an interesting one, yes, but I couldn't help but question it, wonder how such a thing could be sustainable. MADAM just couldn't keep up the eerie tone it was trying for.
There's definite storytelling potential here, and I did find myself somewhat attached to a few of the girls by the end, when things pick up slightly. MADAM tries to align the classics (think tales of Medea and Antigone and such) with its boarding school girls, but often the tacked on tales of these mythical and classical women feel like unnecessary, added on pieces. It reaches too high, trying for a feminist angle, but falls short, with a fast ending that cannot possibly live up to all those classical, high-reaching aims.
"...she wondered how an establishment that promised to educate 'girls of the world' could somehow make its women feel so small."
Overall, there's a lot going on in MADAM, but it just didn't gel for me. I couldn't root for Rose for most of the novel, and the classic pieces inserted into the plot didn't work. There were sparks I enjoyed, but overall, this wasn't a favorite. 2.5 stars.
