Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Who Runs the World? in Books
Dec 17, 2018
3.5 stars
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What would the world be like if there were no men, only women? Would it be an idyllic, peaceful planet, where compassion and courtesy are more important than money and owning commodities? A world without war, without crime, without weapons? Global agreements with everyone working together and not for personal gain? Endangered animals suddenly thriving in a landscape no longer inhabited by poachers? Perfect, perhaps? <i>Welcome to the Matriarchy.</i>
<i>Who Runs the World?</i> by Virigina Bergin explores the concept of growing up in a world with no men. Sixty years previously, a virus wiped out anyone with a Y chromosome (i.e. men), leaving women to pull together to survive in a dystopian world. River, aged fourteen, has never met a boy, and never expects to – they are as rare as unicorns. Conditioned to believe that men used to be monsters whose only aims were to rape, harm and kill, River believes the world is a faultless society. But, then she meets Mason.
Mason is a similar age to River, but has a distinct difference – he’s a boy. After escaping from a sanctuary – something River never knew existed – Mason has been on the run, seriously ill, but, amazingly, not dying. Despite the initial antagonism between the two characters – after all, they have both been conditioned to believe the opposite sexes are dangerous predators - River and Mason quickly discover that the older women in power have been hiding secrets from the rest of the world.
For six decades, men have lived in sterile sanctuaries, isolated from the deadly virus and the rest of the world. Their purpose is to produce sperm to be used in IVF in order to keep the human population going – obvious when you think about it. Yet, there is clearly an ulterior motive amongst the women in charge, for why else would they keep the male existence secret and teach young girls that men were monsters?
As River and Mason try to come to terms with the hidden truth, events begin to unravel the harmony of the Matriarchy. Perhaps an all female world would not be so perfect after all.
Initially, the tranquil civilisation Bergin creates feels false, a mockery of today’s politics. It is almost like feminism gone too far, claiming that men are the reason for the suffering in today’s world. True, women are still oppressed by their male counterparts, but the generalization that this is a result of ALL men, is a stretch too far. Once the truth about the situation begins to break through, it becomes more acceptable, more realistic even, given the corrupt society we are used to.
But Bergin has a point, how would the world survive if there were no men? For all we know, a deadly virus could rid the world of XYs, leaving women to piece everything back together. What the author is trying to point out is that women CAN be as powerful as men. Women deserve to be part of politics, of decision making, to have equal rights. Despite the initial suggested perfection, Bergin is showing that women are as capable as men, not better or worse.
Targeted at young adults, <i>Who Runs the World?</i> is written in a way that current readers can relate to, but not in ways one may expect. References made by or about the older generation are much more significant than the life and experiences of River, for it is these women that were alive at the beginning of the 21st century. These women were us.
An innovative novel from an up-and-coming British author, <i>Who Runs the World? </i>will make you think about the future as well as open your eyes to the discrimination of the present. It is a very interesting concept with the potential to be followed up with further novels, or left to the reader’s imagination.
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What would the world be like if there were no men, only women? Would it be an idyllic, peaceful planet, where compassion and courtesy are more important than money and owning commodities? A world without war, without crime, without weapons? Global agreements with everyone working together and not for personal gain? Endangered animals suddenly thriving in a landscape no longer inhabited by poachers? Perfect, perhaps? <i>Welcome to the Matriarchy.</i>
<i>Who Runs the World?</i> by Virigina Bergin explores the concept of growing up in a world with no men. Sixty years previously, a virus wiped out anyone with a Y chromosome (i.e. men), leaving women to pull together to survive in a dystopian world. River, aged fourteen, has never met a boy, and never expects to – they are as rare as unicorns. Conditioned to believe that men used to be monsters whose only aims were to rape, harm and kill, River believes the world is a faultless society. But, then she meets Mason.
Mason is a similar age to River, but has a distinct difference – he’s a boy. After escaping from a sanctuary – something River never knew existed – Mason has been on the run, seriously ill, but, amazingly, not dying. Despite the initial antagonism between the two characters – after all, they have both been conditioned to believe the opposite sexes are dangerous predators - River and Mason quickly discover that the older women in power have been hiding secrets from the rest of the world.
For six decades, men have lived in sterile sanctuaries, isolated from the deadly virus and the rest of the world. Their purpose is to produce sperm to be used in IVF in order to keep the human population going – obvious when you think about it. Yet, there is clearly an ulterior motive amongst the women in charge, for why else would they keep the male existence secret and teach young girls that men were monsters?
As River and Mason try to come to terms with the hidden truth, events begin to unravel the harmony of the Matriarchy. Perhaps an all female world would not be so perfect after all.
Initially, the tranquil civilisation Bergin creates feels false, a mockery of today’s politics. It is almost like feminism gone too far, claiming that men are the reason for the suffering in today’s world. True, women are still oppressed by their male counterparts, but the generalization that this is a result of ALL men, is a stretch too far. Once the truth about the situation begins to break through, it becomes more acceptable, more realistic even, given the corrupt society we are used to.
But Bergin has a point, how would the world survive if there were no men? For all we know, a deadly virus could rid the world of XYs, leaving women to piece everything back together. What the author is trying to point out is that women CAN be as powerful as men. Women deserve to be part of politics, of decision making, to have equal rights. Despite the initial suggested perfection, Bergin is showing that women are as capable as men, not better or worse.
Targeted at young adults, <i>Who Runs the World?</i> is written in a way that current readers can relate to, but not in ways one may expect. References made by or about the older generation are much more significant than the life and experiences of River, for it is these women that were alive at the beginning of the 21st century. These women were us.
An innovative novel from an up-and-coming British author, <i>Who Runs the World? </i>will make you think about the future as well as open your eyes to the discrimination of the present. It is a very interesting concept with the potential to be followed up with further novels, or left to the reader’s imagination.
WinThings - Free Stuff, Prizes, Contests, Giveaways, & Sweepstakes
Catalogs and Lifestyle
10.0
Rate It
App
Featuring over 1,000 sweepstakes! Easily enter and win FREE prizes from the best selection of...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Catastrophic History of You and Me in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review will be available on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Soemthing Year Old Girl</a> from the middle of August).
I'd been wanting to read The Catastrophic History of You and Me by Jess Rothenberg for awhile now. I had found it cheap on Amazon and decided to buy it. Although it was a kind of good book, I wish I had seen if my library had it to borrow.
I don't really need to explain the synopsis in my words because the official one seems to describe what the book is about quite well. If I explain it, I'd just be saying the same thing, but not as good.
The title is a mouthful, but I like it. It's one of the first things that made me want to pick up this book. I do believe that the title fits this book perfectly!
The cover is what caught my eye the most! It is absolutely gorgeous! It's also a scene that appears in the book a few times.
The world building was done quite well, and I loved the setting! I love how when Brie dies, she's transported by bus to a pizza place she frequented quite a bit. There's something about that that I just found funny! There's only one time that I felt confused, but I don't want to say anything due to spoilers. Oh, and one more thing. Brie says her family called her by cheese nicknames due to her name. However, Patrick as well as other people she sees in the afterlife due that as well. However, I just don't think everyone would associate her name with cheese, nor would they be so blatant to tease her about it. Other then that, the world building is easy to imagine.
For about half of the book, the pacing seemed a bit slow to me. In fact, I was thinking about giving up on the book altogether. However, the second half picks up the pacing, and it becomes quite an enjoyable read from there on out..
I've always been interested in plots where someone dies and gets to look at their friends and family. Brie wants to get back at Jacob in the afterlife for breaking her heart. She sees the consequences, and we are left to wonder what Brie will do. We also find out Jacob's big secret which I didn't see coming. I also didn't see the other plot twist. I love being surprised!!
I started off liking Brie. She seemed like a really insecure but nice girl. However, I soon found her to be annoying and mean. I understand wanting revenge on someone who has hurt you, but what she did was really uncalled for. I also found her thought pattern to be really vicious and spiteful. I didn't like how she treated Patrick either. She tries to make amends, but it's just too little, too late for me. I did like Patrick and found him to be a rather sweet and friendly guy. The way he spoke sometimes annoyed me, but overall, he was very likable.
The dialogue was very easy to understand and flowed very well. Like I said, there were times I didn't like the way Patrick spoke, but that wasn't very often. I found it interesting to see how Brie's family and friends carried on without her. There's also some swearing in this book.
Overall, The Catastrophic History of You and Me started out a bit boring, but it got better. It turns out to be a sweet story with a moral to it, I believe.
I'd recommend this book to those age 14+ who are looking for a sweet read with a great message attached to it.
I'd give The Catastrophic History of You and Me by Jess Rothenberg a 3.5 out of 5.
I'd been wanting to read The Catastrophic History of You and Me by Jess Rothenberg for awhile now. I had found it cheap on Amazon and decided to buy it. Although it was a kind of good book, I wish I had seen if my library had it to borrow.
I don't really need to explain the synopsis in my words because the official one seems to describe what the book is about quite well. If I explain it, I'd just be saying the same thing, but not as good.
The title is a mouthful, but I like it. It's one of the first things that made me want to pick up this book. I do believe that the title fits this book perfectly!
The cover is what caught my eye the most! It is absolutely gorgeous! It's also a scene that appears in the book a few times.
The world building was done quite well, and I loved the setting! I love how when Brie dies, she's transported by bus to a pizza place she frequented quite a bit. There's something about that that I just found funny! There's only one time that I felt confused, but I don't want to say anything due to spoilers. Oh, and one more thing. Brie says her family called her by cheese nicknames due to her name. However, Patrick as well as other people she sees in the afterlife due that as well. However, I just don't think everyone would associate her name with cheese, nor would they be so blatant to tease her about it. Other then that, the world building is easy to imagine.
For about half of the book, the pacing seemed a bit slow to me. In fact, I was thinking about giving up on the book altogether. However, the second half picks up the pacing, and it becomes quite an enjoyable read from there on out..
I've always been interested in plots where someone dies and gets to look at their friends and family. Brie wants to get back at Jacob in the afterlife for breaking her heart. She sees the consequences, and we are left to wonder what Brie will do. We also find out Jacob's big secret which I didn't see coming. I also didn't see the other plot twist. I love being surprised!!
I started off liking Brie. She seemed like a really insecure but nice girl. However, I soon found her to be annoying and mean. I understand wanting revenge on someone who has hurt you, but what she did was really uncalled for. I also found her thought pattern to be really vicious and spiteful. I didn't like how she treated Patrick either. She tries to make amends, but it's just too little, too late for me. I did like Patrick and found him to be a rather sweet and friendly guy. The way he spoke sometimes annoyed me, but overall, he was very likable.
The dialogue was very easy to understand and flowed very well. Like I said, there were times I didn't like the way Patrick spoke, but that wasn't very often. I found it interesting to see how Brie's family and friends carried on without her. There's also some swearing in this book.
Overall, The Catastrophic History of You and Me started out a bit boring, but it got better. It turns out to be a sweet story with a moral to it, I believe.
I'd recommend this book to those age 14+ who are looking for a sweet read with a great message attached to it.
I'd give The Catastrophic History of You and Me by Jess Rothenberg a 3.5 out of 5.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020
Spectacular action set pieces done "in camera" (1 more)
Branagh and Debecki, both superb
Sound mix makes dialogue unintelligible (1 more)
In the words of Huey Lewis, "You're too darn loud"
Only Nolan and Schrödinger’s cat knows what’s going on.
Tenet is the long awaited new movie from Christopher Nolan. The movie that's set to reboot the multiplexes post-Covid. It's a manic, extremely loud, extremely baffling sci-fi cum spy rollercoaster that will please a lot of Nolan fan-boys but which left me with very mixed views.
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Paper Towns in Books
Dec 7, 2018
This was my book of the month for March 2014. You can view and reblog my Tumblr post here: http://fuzzysparrow.tumblr.com/post/81305903630/x
<i>Paper Towns</i> is a brilliantly written novel by John Green. Having only previously read <i>The Fault in our Stars</i> I have little to compare it to and cannot say whether it is his best. I am writing this less that half an hour after finishing <i>Paper Towns</i> therefore it is still fresh in my mind, which may explain my slight preference over <i>TFIOS</i>. However the story lines are so different that it is not really fair to compare them.
Set in Orlando, Florida, <i>Paper Towns</i> is narrated by eighteen-year-old Quentin Jacobson (often referred to as Q). It begins with a flash back to when he and next door neighbour, Margo Roth Spiegelman, were nine and discovered a dead body in the park. It is here that the differences in character are pointed out: “As I took those two steps back, Margo took two equally small and quiet steps forward.” Q is an anxious boy, whereas Margo comes across as very confident.
Despite their childhood relationship, for the main bulk of the story Q and Margo have grown apart. They belong to different social circles: Margo to the popular crowd and Q with the gamers, band members and social outcasts. But things take a turn when one night Margo climbs through Q’s bedroom window and insists he accompany her on a nighttime adventure, going around righting wrongs and wronging rights.
But the next day Margo runs away telling no one where she is going, except it appears that she has left clues to her whereabouts. Clues only intended for Q to discover. With the help of his prom-obsessed friend, Ben; Radar, the guy whose parents own the world’s largest collection of black Santas (seriously, where does Green come up with this stuff?); and Lacey, Margo’s best friend and Ben’s soon to be girlfriend; Q struggles to understand the clues and uncover Margo’s hiding place.
To begin with it is exciting to read about Q and his friends unscrambling the hidden messages but as the story goes on and Margo is yet to be found a sense of dread creeps up on us and Q begins to think the worst.
The final section, however, is fast past and thrilling to read as the characters travel across states, with a rather short time limit, in Q’s mini van in a final attempt to find Margo. What will they find when they arrive? Will Margo still be there?
At first I was not sure that I would like this book. Chapter one is mostly about Quentin, Ben and Radar fooling around as boys do, but once everything kicks off with Margo it is really exciting. Similarly to <i>The Fault in our Stars</i>, Green has filled <i>Paper Towns</i> with clever metaphors with paper, string, balloons and grass being used to represent life. It is a very witty narrative containing lots of humour, yet also manages to convey important ideas about the way we see the world, and the people in it.
<i>Paper Towns</i> can be described as a contemporary, coming-of-age story. As mentioned already, Margo was portrayed as a confident girl whereas Quentin was the opposite. Despite Q stating “I wanted Margo’s disappearance to change me; but it hasn’t, not really” I think Green has shown major character developments, and possibly even role reversals. Q may never completely get rid of his anxieties and does not totally become a different person, but he does gain more confidence as he is forced out of his comfort zone, and his perception of other people also begins to alter. Margo on the other hand may not be all that she seems. The real Margo may in fact be a quiet, rather lost teen in a world she feels trapped in. I think this story and Q’s development has the potential to inspire others of similar ages and make all readers question things about themselves.
Overall, an exceptionally good read.
<i>Paper Towns</i> is a brilliantly written novel by John Green. Having only previously read <i>The Fault in our Stars</i> I have little to compare it to and cannot say whether it is his best. I am writing this less that half an hour after finishing <i>Paper Towns</i> therefore it is still fresh in my mind, which may explain my slight preference over <i>TFIOS</i>. However the story lines are so different that it is not really fair to compare them.
Set in Orlando, Florida, <i>Paper Towns</i> is narrated by eighteen-year-old Quentin Jacobson (often referred to as Q). It begins with a flash back to when he and next door neighbour, Margo Roth Spiegelman, were nine and discovered a dead body in the park. It is here that the differences in character are pointed out: “As I took those two steps back, Margo took two equally small and quiet steps forward.” Q is an anxious boy, whereas Margo comes across as very confident.
Despite their childhood relationship, for the main bulk of the story Q and Margo have grown apart. They belong to different social circles: Margo to the popular crowd and Q with the gamers, band members and social outcasts. But things take a turn when one night Margo climbs through Q’s bedroom window and insists he accompany her on a nighttime adventure, going around righting wrongs and wronging rights.
But the next day Margo runs away telling no one where she is going, except it appears that she has left clues to her whereabouts. Clues only intended for Q to discover. With the help of his prom-obsessed friend, Ben; Radar, the guy whose parents own the world’s largest collection of black Santas (seriously, where does Green come up with this stuff?); and Lacey, Margo’s best friend and Ben’s soon to be girlfriend; Q struggles to understand the clues and uncover Margo’s hiding place.
To begin with it is exciting to read about Q and his friends unscrambling the hidden messages but as the story goes on and Margo is yet to be found a sense of dread creeps up on us and Q begins to think the worst.
The final section, however, is fast past and thrilling to read as the characters travel across states, with a rather short time limit, in Q’s mini van in a final attempt to find Margo. What will they find when they arrive? Will Margo still be there?
At first I was not sure that I would like this book. Chapter one is mostly about Quentin, Ben and Radar fooling around as boys do, but once everything kicks off with Margo it is really exciting. Similarly to <i>The Fault in our Stars</i>, Green has filled <i>Paper Towns</i> with clever metaphors with paper, string, balloons and grass being used to represent life. It is a very witty narrative containing lots of humour, yet also manages to convey important ideas about the way we see the world, and the people in it.
<i>Paper Towns</i> can be described as a contemporary, coming-of-age story. As mentioned already, Margo was portrayed as a confident girl whereas Quentin was the opposite. Despite Q stating “I wanted Margo’s disappearance to change me; but it hasn’t, not really” I think Green has shown major character developments, and possibly even role reversals. Q may never completely get rid of his anxieties and does not totally become a different person, but he does gain more confidence as he is forced out of his comfort zone, and his perception of other people also begins to alter. Margo on the other hand may not be all that she seems. The real Margo may in fact be a quiet, rather lost teen in a world she feels trapped in. I think this story and Q’s development has the potential to inspire others of similar ages and make all readers question things about themselves.
Overall, an exceptionally good read.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Arctic Scavengers in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
Welcome to the Ice Age. No, not the animated movie. I’m talking about the real deal. Arctic Scavengers is set in a post-apocalyptic ice age where the cold is deadly and the resources are scarce. Any surviving humans have banded together to form ‘tribes’ that are competing for dominance in this frigid tundra. Can you and your tribe outwit your competitors to become the most powerful group? Or will a bigger and more menacing tribe overpower you and jeopardize your survival?
Disclaimer: The solo variant is only addressed in the Recon Expansion rules. There IS another expansion – HQ – but I have not used that content in my solo plays. This review only encompasses the Base Game and Recon Expansion.
Arctic Scavengers is a deck-building game where players are recruiting mercenaries to their tribes, searching for general resources, and battling other tribes for contested resources. Each turn has two main phases – Resource Gathering and Skirmish. During Resource Gathering, you play cards from your hand to either recruit new mercenaries or search the junkyard for general resources. Any remaining cards in your hand are then used during the Skirmish phase – where the player with the highest ‘fight’ value wins the contested resource for that round. At the end of the game, the player with the biggest tribe wins!
The solo variant has some minor differences, but is played essentially the same way. In a solo game, the contested resource cards are divided into 7 skirmishes to be encountered throughout the game. You can decide when to engage in a skirmish – it is not a requirement to encounter one each turn. After each skirmish, you either win and earn a contested resource, or lose and must permanently discard a card from your losing hand. The game ends when all 7 skirmishes have been encountered. The other difference is that each time you have to re-shuffle your discard pile, you must permanently remove the top card of your new deck from the game. Beyond those changes, the game remains the same. At the end of the game, all cards in your tribe are worth certain numbers of points – the goal is to beat your own personal best score.
In theory, this game sounds super cool! But when I actually got to play it solo, I was seriously underwhelmed. The game feels stagnant in the sense that there is no tension or urgency in your strategy. Since YOU get to decide when to engage in a skirmish, it is possible to just while away the time building up your deck until you have enough cards to beat every skirmish. Yes, you permanently discard a card each time you re-shuffle your discard pile, but if you are able to recruit one or two new cards each turn, it negates the penalty of discarding a card. The ability to choose when to engage in skirmishes is seriously over-powered because there is nothing stopping you from ignoring skirmishes and amassing cards for end-game scoring.
The other grievance I have with the game is regarding the Junkyard – the deck of cards where you ‘search’ for resources. The solo rules do not explicitly address setting up the Junkyard deck at all. So do you use one or not? Not having the Junkyard deck can be a serious hinderance – certain mercenaries cannot be recruited without certain resources. If you DO play with the Junkyard, how many cards do you use? Do you use the corresponding cards from the Base game and BOTH expansions? Only Base game and one expansion? Again, not explicitly addressed. I’ve tried using all of the Junkyard cards and that is difficult – there are just too many cards in that deck. I have gone entire games without coming across a necessary resource just because the size of the deck is too large (and I’m apparently a poor card-shuffler). The simple solution to this ambiguity would have been to just address it in the rulebook. But it’s not there, so I’m left guessing as to how I should set it up every time.
I really like the idea of this game. I really don’t like the solo variant though. Not having forced skirmishes makes the game extremely boring for me – I don’t really need a strategy since I can just recruit cards until I can draw a powerful hand. If there was a timeline for skirmishes – maybe something like “You must encounter one skirmish every other turn” – the game would be vastly different. I would actually need to strategize what cards to recruit and how I should delegate my cards on turns with a skirmish. In most games, I will reach a certain point where I choose to encounter a skirmish (that I know I will lose) just because I am starting to get bored. I appreciate the sentiment of including a solo variant, but this one just does not work.
Arctic Scavengers requires decent strategy and it offers good player interaction in group games. In a solo game, however, it is just imbalanced and boring. This is one solo variant that I would not recommend that you try, unless you are including drastic house rules.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/solo-chronicles-arctic-scavengers/
Welcome to the Ice Age. No, not the animated movie. I’m talking about the real deal. Arctic Scavengers is set in a post-apocalyptic ice age where the cold is deadly and the resources are scarce. Any surviving humans have banded together to form ‘tribes’ that are competing for dominance in this frigid tundra. Can you and your tribe outwit your competitors to become the most powerful group? Or will a bigger and more menacing tribe overpower you and jeopardize your survival?
Disclaimer: The solo variant is only addressed in the Recon Expansion rules. There IS another expansion – HQ – but I have not used that content in my solo plays. This review only encompasses the Base Game and Recon Expansion.
Arctic Scavengers is a deck-building game where players are recruiting mercenaries to their tribes, searching for general resources, and battling other tribes for contested resources. Each turn has two main phases – Resource Gathering and Skirmish. During Resource Gathering, you play cards from your hand to either recruit new mercenaries or search the junkyard for general resources. Any remaining cards in your hand are then used during the Skirmish phase – where the player with the highest ‘fight’ value wins the contested resource for that round. At the end of the game, the player with the biggest tribe wins!
The solo variant has some minor differences, but is played essentially the same way. In a solo game, the contested resource cards are divided into 7 skirmishes to be encountered throughout the game. You can decide when to engage in a skirmish – it is not a requirement to encounter one each turn. After each skirmish, you either win and earn a contested resource, or lose and must permanently discard a card from your losing hand. The game ends when all 7 skirmishes have been encountered. The other difference is that each time you have to re-shuffle your discard pile, you must permanently remove the top card of your new deck from the game. Beyond those changes, the game remains the same. At the end of the game, all cards in your tribe are worth certain numbers of points – the goal is to beat your own personal best score.
In theory, this game sounds super cool! But when I actually got to play it solo, I was seriously underwhelmed. The game feels stagnant in the sense that there is no tension or urgency in your strategy. Since YOU get to decide when to engage in a skirmish, it is possible to just while away the time building up your deck until you have enough cards to beat every skirmish. Yes, you permanently discard a card each time you re-shuffle your discard pile, but if you are able to recruit one or two new cards each turn, it negates the penalty of discarding a card. The ability to choose when to engage in skirmishes is seriously over-powered because there is nothing stopping you from ignoring skirmishes and amassing cards for end-game scoring.
The other grievance I have with the game is regarding the Junkyard – the deck of cards where you ‘search’ for resources. The solo rules do not explicitly address setting up the Junkyard deck at all. So do you use one or not? Not having the Junkyard deck can be a serious hinderance – certain mercenaries cannot be recruited without certain resources. If you DO play with the Junkyard, how many cards do you use? Do you use the corresponding cards from the Base game and BOTH expansions? Only Base game and one expansion? Again, not explicitly addressed. I’ve tried using all of the Junkyard cards and that is difficult – there are just too many cards in that deck. I have gone entire games without coming across a necessary resource just because the size of the deck is too large (and I’m apparently a poor card-shuffler). The simple solution to this ambiguity would have been to just address it in the rulebook. But it’s not there, so I’m left guessing as to how I should set it up every time.
I really like the idea of this game. I really don’t like the solo variant though. Not having forced skirmishes makes the game extremely boring for me – I don’t really need a strategy since I can just recruit cards until I can draw a powerful hand. If there was a timeline for skirmishes – maybe something like “You must encounter one skirmish every other turn” – the game would be vastly different. I would actually need to strategize what cards to recruit and how I should delegate my cards on turns with a skirmish. In most games, I will reach a certain point where I choose to encounter a skirmish (that I know I will lose) just because I am starting to get bored. I appreciate the sentiment of including a solo variant, but this one just does not work.
Arctic Scavengers requires decent strategy and it offers good player interaction in group games. In a solo game, however, it is just imbalanced and boring. This is one solo variant that I would not recommend that you try, unless you are including drastic house rules.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/solo-chronicles-arctic-scavengers/
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated To Kill a Mockingbird in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Well, February is definitely the month for discovering classics I’ve missed! For some reason, I’d always classed To Kill a Mockingbird in amongst the Agatha Christie genre of murder mysteries – not that I’ve read those either – and didn’t know enough about it for it to have piqued my interest. Now I’ve read it though, I can see what all the fuss is about, and it’s not surprising that, despite being published in 1960, it was still the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/09/best-selling-books-all-time-fifty-shades-grey-compare">65th best-selling book of all time</a> in 2012. Beware of spoilers!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Dec 20, 2017 (Updated Dec 21, 2017)
Excellent performances (2 more)
Standout awesome moments
SFX
Huge plot holes (1 more)
Wasted potential
Not Your Grandpa's Star Wars
Contains spoilers, click to show
DISCLAIMER: This review will contain spoilers from the start and throughout. If you haven't seen the movie yet, then go read someone else's review and come back to mine once you have seen it.
This is a year for great controversies and Star Wars is not exempt from this rule. I get that Rian Johnson was going for something different, but damn! This movie was not what I expected. In a way, this is a good thing, as fans were left surprised at the decisions made in the movie, however not all of the surprising decisions were made for the better.
Let's go through what I did like. First off, the performances all around were brilliant, with the stand outs being Adam Driver and Mark Hamill. Adam driver plays a conflicted and tortured, yet exceedingly powerful Kylo Ren. His performance is electric throughout the movie and as an actor, his range is extremely impressive. Although this is probably my least favourite portrayal of Luke Skywalker in a Star Wars movie, it is probably my favourite performance of Mark Hamill playing the iconic character. He commits to the odd decisions that Johnson makes with integrity and grit and it is clear that he has honed his skills as an actor in the 30+ years since the original trilogy.
The special effects and CGI work in the movie was astonishing and breath-taking, the movie is a joy to look at on a visual level and the technical achievement of some of the shots featured is nothing short of incredible. There were also several moments throughout the film where I was on the edge of my seat, moments that were so cool to see unfold that I felt like a kid again watching Star Wars for the very first time.
Okay, now onto the issues I had with the movie. First off, the whole Casino planet section of the movie, you can just remove it. Ignore it, it has no bearing to the overall plot and if it wasn't included, the movie would still play out in the exact same way. The entire segment is a waste of time and the end result isn't even worth the hassle. Finn was one of my favourite character in Force Awakens, so it was good to see him get his own storyline here, but the awkward moments and lack of payoff made it such a waste of time for the audience. Rose, the new character that they introduced to be Finn's sidekick and potential love interest was god-awful. Hers was probably the single worst performance in the entire movie. The shoehorned message about animal cruelty also felt too forced and cringe-inducing and that's coming from an animal lover. The whole sequence also brought back horrible memories of the prequels, which is something that I never want to be reminded of again.
The other dumb subplot in this movie revolves around Poe and a new character played by Laura Dern called Admiral Holdo. At the start of the movie the Rebels are shocked to discover that the Empire can track them through light speed and then the slowest space chase ever ensues, with the Empire waiting until the Rebels to run out of fuel before blowing them up. In the meantime, Kylo Ren and a squad of bombers attack the rebel ship up close. During the attack, the control deck that Leia is on is blown up. Leia survives, but is incapacitated for the middle act of the movie and Admiral Holdo is put in charge. Poe asks her over and over what the plan is and she refuses to tell him, labelling him as a hothead flyboy. He eventually decides he can't just sit around and do nothing while their ship is destroyed, (this is also the catalyst for Finn and Rose going on their dumb mission to the casino planet,) and so he enacts a mutiny on Holdo. Then Leia wakes up and reveals that the plan all along was to take the escape pods to a nearby planet containing an old rebel base and attempt a last stand there. This whole mutiny could have been avoided with a simple conversation, or even a goddamn post-it note.
The other thing that bothered me was the lack of scenes showing Rey being trained by Luke. There are two brief scenes of her training and that is apparently enough to allow her to become a 'jedi.' Instead of following Finn and Rose on their pointless adventure, or Poe and his pointless mutiny, we should have spent the majority of the movie on Luke's island. I also don't know why they chose to portray Luke as such a slob. This is the guy that blew up the Death Star and spearheaded the rebellion that changed the tide of war across the entire galaxy and now he's milking weird sloth creatures for food.
I didn't hate the reveal that Rey's parents were nobodies that came from nothing, but it just makes all of the set up in Force Awakens and in the first half of this movie seem like such a waste of everyone's time. I also thought that they squandered something that could have been interesting with how they just nonchalantly killed Snoke. With the age he looked and his torn up face, this guy has clearly been around for a long time, like probably as long as Yoda or Vader, so how come we have we never seen him over the course of the previous eight films? Was he in hiding? If so, then why was he in hiding? Why did he come out of hiding after the Empire fell and why was he appointed as Supreme Leader? I guess we will never know the answer to these questions after he was unceremoniously cut in half, or maybe we will find out in a comic or a novel. Not quite the epic revelation we expected for this character.
Lastly, I want to talk about Phasma. Rian Johnson has joked that she is like this trilogy's version of Kenny from South Park at this point and frankly I think that this is a valid comparison and I don't think that it's something to joke about. Gwendoline Christie is a phenomenal actress and she is so wasted in these movies. Her Bulletproof armour was pretty cool, but even that opens a ton of plot holes: why isn't all of the Stormtrooper armour made from the same stuff? If her armour is bulletproof, then why did she go along with Finn and Han's plan to shut down the shields on Starkiller Base in The Force Awakens? Sure Finn had a blaster pointed at her head, but we know now that the bolt would have just bounced off.
Overall, there was so much wasted potential in this movie. Rey's potentially interesting heritage was wasted, Snoke's potentially interesting backstory was wasted, Phasma was wasted again. Fiin and Poe were wasted on pointless side-quests and we should have seen Rey's awesome training montage to become a master jedi. Also, with Luke's lacklustre death at the end of the film, it feels like he was wasted too. There were some great moments in the film and I feel like I have to see it again to solidify my opinions, but to be honest, I can totally see why this movie is dividing fans.
This is a year for great controversies and Star Wars is not exempt from this rule. I get that Rian Johnson was going for something different, but damn! This movie was not what I expected. In a way, this is a good thing, as fans were left surprised at the decisions made in the movie, however not all of the surprising decisions were made for the better.
Let's go through what I did like. First off, the performances all around were brilliant, with the stand outs being Adam Driver and Mark Hamill. Adam driver plays a conflicted and tortured, yet exceedingly powerful Kylo Ren. His performance is electric throughout the movie and as an actor, his range is extremely impressive. Although this is probably my least favourite portrayal of Luke Skywalker in a Star Wars movie, it is probably my favourite performance of Mark Hamill playing the iconic character. He commits to the odd decisions that Johnson makes with integrity and grit and it is clear that he has honed his skills as an actor in the 30+ years since the original trilogy.
The special effects and CGI work in the movie was astonishing and breath-taking, the movie is a joy to look at on a visual level and the technical achievement of some of the shots featured is nothing short of incredible. There were also several moments throughout the film where I was on the edge of my seat, moments that were so cool to see unfold that I felt like a kid again watching Star Wars for the very first time.
Okay, now onto the issues I had with the movie. First off, the whole Casino planet section of the movie, you can just remove it. Ignore it, it has no bearing to the overall plot and if it wasn't included, the movie would still play out in the exact same way. The entire segment is a waste of time and the end result isn't even worth the hassle. Finn was one of my favourite character in Force Awakens, so it was good to see him get his own storyline here, but the awkward moments and lack of payoff made it such a waste of time for the audience. Rose, the new character that they introduced to be Finn's sidekick and potential love interest was god-awful. Hers was probably the single worst performance in the entire movie. The shoehorned message about animal cruelty also felt too forced and cringe-inducing and that's coming from an animal lover. The whole sequence also brought back horrible memories of the prequels, which is something that I never want to be reminded of again.
The other dumb subplot in this movie revolves around Poe and a new character played by Laura Dern called Admiral Holdo. At the start of the movie the Rebels are shocked to discover that the Empire can track them through light speed and then the slowest space chase ever ensues, with the Empire waiting until the Rebels to run out of fuel before blowing them up. In the meantime, Kylo Ren and a squad of bombers attack the rebel ship up close. During the attack, the control deck that Leia is on is blown up. Leia survives, but is incapacitated for the middle act of the movie and Admiral Holdo is put in charge. Poe asks her over and over what the plan is and she refuses to tell him, labelling him as a hothead flyboy. He eventually decides he can't just sit around and do nothing while their ship is destroyed, (this is also the catalyst for Finn and Rose going on their dumb mission to the casino planet,) and so he enacts a mutiny on Holdo. Then Leia wakes up and reveals that the plan all along was to take the escape pods to a nearby planet containing an old rebel base and attempt a last stand there. This whole mutiny could have been avoided with a simple conversation, or even a goddamn post-it note.
The other thing that bothered me was the lack of scenes showing Rey being trained by Luke. There are two brief scenes of her training and that is apparently enough to allow her to become a 'jedi.' Instead of following Finn and Rose on their pointless adventure, or Poe and his pointless mutiny, we should have spent the majority of the movie on Luke's island. I also don't know why they chose to portray Luke as such a slob. This is the guy that blew up the Death Star and spearheaded the rebellion that changed the tide of war across the entire galaxy and now he's milking weird sloth creatures for food.
I didn't hate the reveal that Rey's parents were nobodies that came from nothing, but it just makes all of the set up in Force Awakens and in the first half of this movie seem like such a waste of everyone's time. I also thought that they squandered something that could have been interesting with how they just nonchalantly killed Snoke. With the age he looked and his torn up face, this guy has clearly been around for a long time, like probably as long as Yoda or Vader, so how come we have we never seen him over the course of the previous eight films? Was he in hiding? If so, then why was he in hiding? Why did he come out of hiding after the Empire fell and why was he appointed as Supreme Leader? I guess we will never know the answer to these questions after he was unceremoniously cut in half, or maybe we will find out in a comic or a novel. Not quite the epic revelation we expected for this character.
Lastly, I want to talk about Phasma. Rian Johnson has joked that she is like this trilogy's version of Kenny from South Park at this point and frankly I think that this is a valid comparison and I don't think that it's something to joke about. Gwendoline Christie is a phenomenal actress and she is so wasted in these movies. Her Bulletproof armour was pretty cool, but even that opens a ton of plot holes: why isn't all of the Stormtrooper armour made from the same stuff? If her armour is bulletproof, then why did she go along with Finn and Han's plan to shut down the shields on Starkiller Base in The Force Awakens? Sure Finn had a blaster pointed at her head, but we know now that the bolt would have just bounced off.
Overall, there was so much wasted potential in this movie. Rey's potentially interesting heritage was wasted, Snoke's potentially interesting backstory was wasted, Phasma was wasted again. Fiin and Poe were wasted on pointless side-quests and we should have seen Rey's awesome training montage to become a master jedi. Also, with Luke's lacklustre death at the end of the film, it feels like he was wasted too. There were some great moments in the film and I feel like I have to see it again to solidify my opinions, but to be honest, I can totally see why this movie is dividing fans.
Animation Creator HD
Entertainment and Utilities
App
What do you get when you combine the most popular iPad drawing apps and the #1 hottest animation...