Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
The self confessed king of cinema surrealism, Luis Buñuel has 15 feature films listed as 7.5 or higher on IMDb, proving his life’s work is more loved and respected as you might think. This title was the only one I had really heard of being talked about by serious film folk that stuck in my mind, so it was as good a place as any to start with. It is an odd beast that I had a little trouble getting onboard with. It feels entirely 70s and kitsch, and on the surface feels at times little better than The Confessions of a Window Cleaner, or some such bawdy farce. To say it is a comedy is to take comedy to mean intellectual absurdism that pokes fun at the conventions and habits that lurk inside humanity, and the sophistication that masks our base instincts and flaws. I got the “joke”, it just all feels very dated now.
The cast have a lot of fun in the dreamlike landscape of manners and appetites, and the symbolism that abounds is indeed quite clever and arch if you want to analyse it. What I did like is how it feels increasingly like an actual dream, where things done and said begin to lose true meaning, and events and places merge into one flow of madness. You can definitely see a lot of ideas here that have been borrowed by other films since, and I appreciate what it tries to do, but ultimately this one left me a little cold. It has a pompous and smug air about it that is not for me, although I totally understand why it is held in high regard. I will probably never choose to watch it again.
The cast have a lot of fun in the dreamlike landscape of manners and appetites, and the symbolism that abounds is indeed quite clever and arch if you want to analyse it. What I did like is how it feels increasingly like an actual dream, where things done and said begin to lose true meaning, and events and places merge into one flow of madness. You can definitely see a lot of ideas here that have been borrowed by other films since, and I appreciate what it tries to do, but ultimately this one left me a little cold. It has a pompous and smug air about it that is not for me, although I totally understand why it is held in high regard. I will probably never choose to watch it again.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman: The Movie (1966) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019 (Updated Feb 18, 2019)
Some days, you just can’t get rid of a bomb!
Before the Frank Miller’s Dark Knight, there was the Caped Crusader; The founding member of the Dynamic Duo, Batman and his ward, the Boy Wonder, Robin. In order to promote the series, after Batman’s first season, a theatrical version was green-lit. Bigger and longer than any of the soon to be syndicated TV show, which would ultimately run for three seasons, Batman was on the big screen with “all his wonderful toys” and a whole host of new ones.
Welcome, the Bat Ladder, Bat-boat, Bat-copter and of course the Bat Shark Repellent! The wry humour can easily be dismissed as hammy and cheap, but in fact, this incarnation of Batman struck a cord and ran with it with confidence. And in this era of The Dark Knight, Batman Light is a welcome respite from all the dower self flagellation of the character.
The late Adam West and Burt Ward are as dry as ever as they over act and dramatically fight crime against a collection of cartoon villains, with this movie delivering the most popular, The Joker (Caesar Romero), Catwoman (Lee Meriwether), The Riddler (Frank Gorshin, all of whom have been brought together by Burgess Meredith’s, Penguin.
Fun from start to finish, with Batman gags, satirical humour and out and out farce! (The bomb gag is classic!) An outrageous plot involving dehydrating the UN Security Council is delivered at a breakneck pace, with one set piece being delivered after another. It is hard to imagine that so much happens in such a lean running time. This is a smart comedy with does not out stay its welcome.
And that is the thing with Batman (1966); It is a smart comedy posing a piece of nonsense. A point proven by its popularity 50 years on. If anything, the recent Lego Batman Movie plays the same hand, only it gets away with it because its a kids Lego digi-mation. But the humour is very similar, irreverently honouring their source.
If you have not seen this in years and god forbid, not at all then get yourself…
…”to the Batmobile!”
Welcome, the Bat Ladder, Bat-boat, Bat-copter and of course the Bat Shark Repellent! The wry humour can easily be dismissed as hammy and cheap, but in fact, this incarnation of Batman struck a cord and ran with it with confidence. And in this era of The Dark Knight, Batman Light is a welcome respite from all the dower self flagellation of the character.
The late Adam West and Burt Ward are as dry as ever as they over act and dramatically fight crime against a collection of cartoon villains, with this movie delivering the most popular, The Joker (Caesar Romero), Catwoman (Lee Meriwether), The Riddler (Frank Gorshin, all of whom have been brought together by Burgess Meredith’s, Penguin.
Fun from start to finish, with Batman gags, satirical humour and out and out farce! (The bomb gag is classic!) An outrageous plot involving dehydrating the UN Security Council is delivered at a breakneck pace, with one set piece being delivered after another. It is hard to imagine that so much happens in such a lean running time. This is a smart comedy with does not out stay its welcome.
And that is the thing with Batman (1966); It is a smart comedy posing a piece of nonsense. A point proven by its popularity 50 years on. If anything, the recent Lego Batman Movie plays the same hand, only it gets away with it because its a kids Lego digi-mation. But the humour is very similar, irreverently honouring their source.
If you have not seen this in years and god forbid, not at all then get yourself…
…”to the Batmobile!”
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Great Race (1965) in Movies
Jul 6, 2018
A fun throwback to 1920's Silent Film Farces
In a tribute to films of a bygone era, Director Blake Edwards pays homage to silent film farces of the 1920's - even dedicating this film to "Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy" - with the slapstick comedy THE GREAT RACE - and succeeds, mostly.
Reteaming Tony Curtis (as the brave, virtuous and good "The Great Leslie") and Jack Lemmon (as the sinister, dastardly and evil "Professor Fate"), The Great Race is great fun watching these two cartoon characters spar and parry with each other throughout the course of this 2 hour and 40 minute farce.
Lemmon, in particular, relishes in dual roles as the menacing Fate, always dressed in black, twirling his mustache and coming up with scheme after scheme to derail Leslie (think the Coyote in the RoadRunner cartoons). His overacting and hammyness in the character is perfect for the tone that this film has set. And his maniacal laugh is one to remember - unless you are remembering the childlike guffaws of the other character Lemmon portrays, the doppelganger of Fate, Crown Prince Frederick. Both these characters are fun to watch and Fate, especially, plays well against his bumbling assistant and foil, "Max", played in utter buffoonishness by the great Peter Falk.
Joining Curtis for the "good guys" is Natalie Wood as Suffragette and Newspaper
Reporter Maggie DuBois (obviously tailored after real life Suffragette and Newspaper Reporter Nellie Bly). It is said that Curtis and Wood did not get along on set (they had worked together in 2 other films and grew to dislike each other), but their on-screen chemistry cannot be ignored and they are fun together. As is the great Keenan Wynn as Leslie's mechanic and friend Hezekiah Sturdy.
But it is not the characters that makes this film go it is the set pieces and frenetic pacing that Director Edwards put before us. From thrilling chase scenes to a Western barroom brawl, to a trip through a blizzard with a polar bear to the "largest pie fight ever put on screen", this film delivers the goods in a wholesome, 1960's way that makes me truly say...
"They don't make 'em like this anymore".
8 out 10 stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Reteaming Tony Curtis (as the brave, virtuous and good "The Great Leslie") and Jack Lemmon (as the sinister, dastardly and evil "Professor Fate"), The Great Race is great fun watching these two cartoon characters spar and parry with each other throughout the course of this 2 hour and 40 minute farce.
Lemmon, in particular, relishes in dual roles as the menacing Fate, always dressed in black, twirling his mustache and coming up with scheme after scheme to derail Leslie (think the Coyote in the RoadRunner cartoons). His overacting and hammyness in the character is perfect for the tone that this film has set. And his maniacal laugh is one to remember - unless you are remembering the childlike guffaws of the other character Lemmon portrays, the doppelganger of Fate, Crown Prince Frederick. Both these characters are fun to watch and Fate, especially, plays well against his bumbling assistant and foil, "Max", played in utter buffoonishness by the great Peter Falk.
Joining Curtis for the "good guys" is Natalie Wood as Suffragette and Newspaper
Reporter Maggie DuBois (obviously tailored after real life Suffragette and Newspaper Reporter Nellie Bly). It is said that Curtis and Wood did not get along on set (they had worked together in 2 other films and grew to dislike each other), but their on-screen chemistry cannot be ignored and they are fun together. As is the great Keenan Wynn as Leslie's mechanic and friend Hezekiah Sturdy.
But it is not the characters that makes this film go it is the set pieces and frenetic pacing that Director Edwards put before us. From thrilling chase scenes to a Western barroom brawl, to a trip through a blizzard with a polar bear to the "largest pie fight ever put on screen", this film delivers the goods in a wholesome, 1960's way that makes me truly say...
"They don't make 'em like this anymore".
8 out 10 stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Rachel (48 KP) rated The 13th Black Candle in Books
May 27, 2017
Great Characters, Great Story. Great book!
For the first fifteen or so pages I kept thinking "I'm not going to like this". The character of Simon Stacey didn't seem particularly sympathetic nor believable in his reaction to a huge, devastating event in his life.
I am so glad that I persevered with this book. There are a lot of side characters but they are all very fleshed out, apart from one or two that couldn't be until the end of the novel.
Although Simon Stacey is the central character, who I did become to really like and 'get', there are some brilliant characters in the parallel story - the police working the case.
You get to see them all grow and change, there are no stereotypical "This is who they are, this is how they will act regardless of what happens" which seems to be the case a lot of the time when it comes to police characters in novels/TV etc.
This really gives credence and a sense of reality to the story. Some elements are very out of the ordinary and you get to see how an actual person would deal with them!
The storyline itself is intriguing. Parts of it are kept shadowy, which had to be done, and other parts are right in your face from the beginning. What seems like a tiny detail actually turns out to be hugely important and vice versa.
As I said - some aspects are esoteric and unusual but Mr Goodwin manages to keep it utterly believable. I think that is because the mundane elements of life are also included.
The ending was skillfully done. What could have turned into a farce was kept under control and the tension was built in exactly the right way.
The only criticism I have is that I couldn't entirely remember who one or two of the characters actually were once they were revealed. This would definitely be partly my fault though. For various reasons I didn't get to read for three days so memory of the first half of the book wasn't what it should have been.
The only thing I would suggest to the author is that a few more reminders of who some of the lesser characters were would have helped.
There are also a few hints that, perhaps, some people aren't what they seem. Could that be paving the way for a sequel? If it is then that is something I would very eagerly read.
I would recommend this book to most people as it has so many elements to it. It's rather hard to pin down just one genre!
I am so glad that I persevered with this book. There are a lot of side characters but they are all very fleshed out, apart from one or two that couldn't be until the end of the novel.
Although Simon Stacey is the central character, who I did become to really like and 'get', there are some brilliant characters in the parallel story - the police working the case.
You get to see them all grow and change, there are no stereotypical "This is who they are, this is how they will act regardless of what happens" which seems to be the case a lot of the time when it comes to police characters in novels/TV etc.
This really gives credence and a sense of reality to the story. Some elements are very out of the ordinary and you get to see how an actual person would deal with them!
The storyline itself is intriguing. Parts of it are kept shadowy, which had to be done, and other parts are right in your face from the beginning. What seems like a tiny detail actually turns out to be hugely important and vice versa.
As I said - some aspects are esoteric and unusual but Mr Goodwin manages to keep it utterly believable. I think that is because the mundane elements of life are also included.
The ending was skillfully done. What could have turned into a farce was kept under control and the tension was built in exactly the right way.
The only criticism I have is that I couldn't entirely remember who one or two of the characters actually were once they were revealed. This would definitely be partly my fault though. For various reasons I didn't get to read for three days so memory of the first half of the book wasn't what it should have been.
The only thing I would suggest to the author is that a few more reminders of who some of the lesser characters were would have helped.
There are also a few hints that, perhaps, some people aren't what they seem. Could that be paving the way for a sequel? If it is then that is something I would very eagerly read.
I would recommend this book to most people as it has so many elements to it. It's rather hard to pin down just one genre!
JT (287 KP) rated Insidious (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
James Wan has all the talent but for some reason is unable to put the killer instinct into his films and finish them off like they should be. With the exception of being one of the founding members of the Saw franchise, his films to date haven’t quite lived up to the expectations we know he can and should be able to deliver on.
Wan returns with Leigh Whannell the creator and writer of Saw, with the pair looking to yet again scare everyone shitless with a haunted house tale, this time focussing on a young boy whose slipped into a coma and drifted into the outer realms called The Further.
When writing Insidious Whannell wanted to make sure that he avoided all the haunted house cliches, and he pretty much did that. What he failed to do though was script a stronger third act, something which might have brought this up on a par with Saw.
Dalton is the one in peril as he suddenly slips into a coma one morning, his mother Renai (Byrne) is then forced to spend time looking after her trio of kids all the while looking over her shoulder, as she hears one bump to the next occurring both in broad daylight and at night.
After some decent scares from the outset including the old “he’s behind you” and murmurings through the baby monitor the film was almost guilty of slipping into a farce as our protagonist Josh Lambert (Wilson) was forced to engage in some astro physics in order to save the day.
It was a real shame as up till that point you’d have spent most of the run time hiding under the covers, as Wan introduced one jolt after another, some more subtle than others but ultimately offering the same desired effect.
The introduction of Elise Rainier (Lin Shaye) the Ghost hunter whose come to see what all the fuss is about is pretty much inevitable. Armed with the latest high tech equipment and a couple of geeks, the aptly named Specs and Tucker, provides much amusement as Rainier delivers the killer line “It’s not the house that’s haunted”.
The film moves through the gears well, but it’s that annoyingly poor third act that ruins it for me. It does try and redeem itself with an all too predictable ending, those that have seen Wan and Whannel’s other film Dead Silence will know what I mean.
At the end of the day you feel all Wan had to do was hit the target, but this is just off to the right!
Wan returns with Leigh Whannell the creator and writer of Saw, with the pair looking to yet again scare everyone shitless with a haunted house tale, this time focussing on a young boy whose slipped into a coma and drifted into the outer realms called The Further.
When writing Insidious Whannell wanted to make sure that he avoided all the haunted house cliches, and he pretty much did that. What he failed to do though was script a stronger third act, something which might have brought this up on a par with Saw.
Dalton is the one in peril as he suddenly slips into a coma one morning, his mother Renai (Byrne) is then forced to spend time looking after her trio of kids all the while looking over her shoulder, as she hears one bump to the next occurring both in broad daylight and at night.
After some decent scares from the outset including the old “he’s behind you” and murmurings through the baby monitor the film was almost guilty of slipping into a farce as our protagonist Josh Lambert (Wilson) was forced to engage in some astro physics in order to save the day.
It was a real shame as up till that point you’d have spent most of the run time hiding under the covers, as Wan introduced one jolt after another, some more subtle than others but ultimately offering the same desired effect.
The introduction of Elise Rainier (Lin Shaye) the Ghost hunter whose come to see what all the fuss is about is pretty much inevitable. Armed with the latest high tech equipment and a couple of geeks, the aptly named Specs and Tucker, provides much amusement as Rainier delivers the killer line “It’s not the house that’s haunted”.
The film moves through the gears well, but it’s that annoyingly poor third act that ruins it for me. It does try and redeem itself with an all too predictable ending, those that have seen Wan and Whannel’s other film Dead Silence will know what I mean.
At the end of the day you feel all Wan had to do was hit the target, but this is just off to the right!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Apr 19, 2021
Nice Try
I have to admit that I never watched the 2006 BORAT film, but when it’s sequel BORAT SUBSEQUENT MOVIEFILM was nominated for 2 Oscars(!) - including Best Supporting Actress - I knew I would have to check this one out.
I have heard the following words and phrases used to describe the BORAT films: daring, ingenious, hilarious, cringe-inducing, smart, dumb, original and important. I would add one other word to this list:
Boring.
Sitting on the screen for and hour and a half like a Saturday Night Live skit that is being stretched too long, BORAT SUBSEQUENT MOVIEFILM held my attention for about the first 15 minutes where I thought that it was kind of funny and clever. And then it went on…and on…and on…running the same “sabotage” joke into the ground, pulling unsuspecting innocents into the outrageous world of Borat (though, I have to admit that most of these “unsuspecting innocents” knew exactly what was going on and were playing along).
Sasha Baron-Cohen is a smart filmmaker, writer and performer and he has earned the right to do whatever he feels like he wants to do. I prefer him in such movie fare as SWEENEY TODD, LES MISERABLES and the recent TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO SEVEN. But, if he feels like he wants to do things like Borat, who am I to argue. He certainly puts his all into the character, the scenarios and the guerilla film-making that is required, so good for him.
Maria Bakalova is nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar as she plays Borat’s daughter who accompanies him on his journey across America. It is a “fine” performance and brings something that this film sorely needs - heart. But Oscar worthy? I don’t think so.
I must also give credit to the filmmakers for pivoting when the pandemic hit. They were in the middle of creating this (obviously) anti-Trump political farce of a film when Covid-19 forced them to pivot - and pivot they did, making this film as much about the virus than it is about politics.
Ultimately, this is a case where I can admire the attempt, the art, the craftmanship and skill and talent needed to pull this movie off. But as a film, it just didn’t go anywhere and I found myself looking at my watch wondering when this film would be over.
And…no…I don’t think I’ll go back a “catch-up” on the first BORAT film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I have heard the following words and phrases used to describe the BORAT films: daring, ingenious, hilarious, cringe-inducing, smart, dumb, original and important. I would add one other word to this list:
Boring.
Sitting on the screen for and hour and a half like a Saturday Night Live skit that is being stretched too long, BORAT SUBSEQUENT MOVIEFILM held my attention for about the first 15 minutes where I thought that it was kind of funny and clever. And then it went on…and on…and on…running the same “sabotage” joke into the ground, pulling unsuspecting innocents into the outrageous world of Borat (though, I have to admit that most of these “unsuspecting innocents” knew exactly what was going on and were playing along).
Sasha Baron-Cohen is a smart filmmaker, writer and performer and he has earned the right to do whatever he feels like he wants to do. I prefer him in such movie fare as SWEENEY TODD, LES MISERABLES and the recent TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO SEVEN. But, if he feels like he wants to do things like Borat, who am I to argue. He certainly puts his all into the character, the scenarios and the guerilla film-making that is required, so good for him.
Maria Bakalova is nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar as she plays Borat’s daughter who accompanies him on his journey across America. It is a “fine” performance and brings something that this film sorely needs - heart. But Oscar worthy? I don’t think so.
I must also give credit to the filmmakers for pivoting when the pandemic hit. They were in the middle of creating this (obviously) anti-Trump political farce of a film when Covid-19 forced them to pivot - and pivot they did, making this film as much about the virus than it is about politics.
Ultimately, this is a case where I can admire the attempt, the art, the craftmanship and skill and talent needed to pull this movie off. But as a film, it just didn’t go anywhere and I found myself looking at my watch wondering when this film would be over.
And…no…I don’t think I’ll go back a “catch-up” on the first BORAT film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Blithe Spirit (2020) in Movies
Mar 31, 2021 (Updated Mar 31, 2021)
The women act like shrews. (6 more)
Cheap jokes.
Lack of class and style.
Poor character development.
No depth to the characters at all.
Unsophisticated.
Would have been funnier without the sex jokes.
No! No! No! This is not the way Noel Coward is meant to be seen. Avoid this!
Contains spoilers, click to show
I am a HUGE fan of Noel Coward and absolutely adore the original Blithe Spirit. I had high hopes for this version as I like all of the actors involved in the movie. Unfortunately, it was a complete disappointment. Judi Dench's Madame Arcati paled in the memory of Margaret Rutherford, though much of the dialogue and actions during the seance scene were the same. She tried her best but the script just wasn't any good. I did appreciate the backstory of her losing her husband in the Boer War and that being the reason she was interested in the occult. The significance of the song Always was not mentioned, though it was very important to the plot in the original and made the movie relatable. Gone was the ethereal, sweet, mischievous little minx Elvira, played by Kay Hammond in the original. Enter the selfish, unlovable shrew of a first wife, played by the usually lovable Leslie Mann in the remake. The relationship between Charles and Elvira does not make any sense to the viewer and there was no point for them to have been together or for her to have thought of her and to bring her forth in the present. This is a missed plot point. In the original, it is actually the maid who was thinking of Elvira, not Charles, but the maid is merely a go-between for props in this movie and has no reason for being there, nor the chef. The relationship between Ruth and Charles is also not a good one and they have no reason to be together in this remake, though in the original, they at least have a few things in common. They seem to have nothing but derision toward each other. Again, I don't see the point of them being together. All of them are miserable together. Even when Elvira and Charles are intimate, it is not for romance and love but for mere hatred, jealousy, and spite. There is even a cheap crotch shot joke that I was appalled to see in this work. And the ending of the movie makes little sense. It's hardly the charming farce Noel Coward intended. Oh, the horrors. Skip this version. Watch the original. Trust me on this. This movie is not the way Noel Coward is meant to be seen.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Blinded by the Light (2019) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
One of the joys of having a cinema card are the previews, because you chose to pay monthly or yearly for unlimited films you get to see some films early, this can be anything from a day to a month. Then there are the secret films, a preview that can be a few months early but you only find out what you are seeing when the certificate card comes up. This is how I came to see Blinded by the Light. As the title came up I dug through my memory to see if I'd seen any trailers, I thought I had but couldn't remember anything about it. Five people left cinema so there must have been some trailers but people leaving doesn't really tell you much, there's always some one who leaves and it's better than the people who stay and mumble about how rubbish it is. After the title came the words ‘Inspired by real events.’ Which still doesn't give to much away, it could be an over the top farce like ‘I Tonya', a black comedy like ‘Three Billboards’ or a dull trudge like ‘The Post'.
It turns out that 'Blinded by the Light' is not really any of these, it's more of a 'slice of life' it the slice is a couple of years. The film centres on Javed, a Pakistani teen living in Luton, England in the late 1980s. Javed has written diaries and poems for most of his life but, due to his family life he has always kept them to himself. Not long after starting his A levels Javed is introduced to the music of Bruce Springsteen and finds that the lyrics speak to him in a way he's never felt before.
Blinded by the Light is a film about family, friends and finding your place. Javed starts off as a quiet, bookish character who, thanks to the people around him and his growing love of Bruce Springsteen records manages to find himself. However, this change leaded to problems as he clash’s with family and friends.
Being set in 80s and being about a Pakistani family the film also touches on the problem of racism and, from the clips I remembered from the trailer I found myself wondering if it was going to erupt into violence in the style of films like 'Made in England'. However, 'blinded by the Light' takes a more family friendly view, it does show some racism but less ‘violent’ and more personal making ‘Blinded by the Light’ a more family friendly film.
Although music plays a large part of the film it is not the music itself that’s important but the effect that it has on Javed, showing how the right music can change someone’s life.
It turns out that 'Blinded by the Light' is not really any of these, it's more of a 'slice of life' it the slice is a couple of years. The film centres on Javed, a Pakistani teen living in Luton, England in the late 1980s. Javed has written diaries and poems for most of his life but, due to his family life he has always kept them to himself. Not long after starting his A levels Javed is introduced to the music of Bruce Springsteen and finds that the lyrics speak to him in a way he's never felt before.
Blinded by the Light is a film about family, friends and finding your place. Javed starts off as a quiet, bookish character who, thanks to the people around him and his growing love of Bruce Springsteen records manages to find himself. However, this change leaded to problems as he clash’s with family and friends.
Being set in 80s and being about a Pakistani family the film also touches on the problem of racism and, from the clips I remembered from the trailer I found myself wondering if it was going to erupt into violence in the style of films like 'Made in England'. However, 'blinded by the Light' takes a more family friendly view, it does show some racism but less ‘violent’ and more personal making ‘Blinded by the Light’ a more family friendly film.
Although music plays a large part of the film it is not the music itself that’s important but the effect that it has on Javed, showing how the right music can change someone’s life.
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated Revealed (Intrigue under Western Skies) (Volume 3) in Books
Mar 5, 2019
Nothing can be hidden that won’t be revealed.
When her father dies, Katherine Levinson discovers her parents have kept secrets that render her happy childhood a farce. She and her gravely ill mother face eviction, and she has no choice but to appeal to the brother she’s never seen, the famous cattle baron, Rhyan Cason. Over her gravely ill mother’s objections, they move to Nebraska and the sprawling cattle ranch, Sollano.
Instead of the warm welcome, Katherine expects, she and her mother are met with whispers and scorn in the little prairie town near Sollano. Gradually, the sins of her parents’ past surface
and Katherine begins to doubt her very identity. With her brother busy with cattle rustlers and her mother too ill to be bothered, Katherine turns to Colt Holliman, a soft-spoken neighboring rancher, for comfort.
Tired of waiting for the right woman to come along, Colt has promised to wait for Charley Ryder, an acclaimed female sharpshooter and equestrian acrobat with the Wild West Show, but it’s becoming clear Charley loves the show more than him. As his attraction to Katherine grows, he finds himself spiritually conflicted. How can he break from past commitments and follow his heart?
Then unexpected danger strikes, testing Katherine’s and Colt’s faith in God—and each other.
My Thoughts: This was a delightful novel to read, the storyline is based in Nebraska. Nebraska is known for their corn, beef , horses ,rodeos and sugar beets! I lived in Nebraska and this brought back some great memories for me. The author has done a phenomenal job of bringing the reader into the ranching life. I love that she brings in the Wild West shows as well, there is so much history from the west that people don't have any idea that living in the west is truly like and the author has given the reader a great glimpse of the history.
Katherine is such a loveable character, the reader feels her plight, her father has passed away, her mother is ill, there are bills to pay. What is she to do?
Katherine sends a letter to a brother she hasn't met which changes her life forever.
Katherine has many things to deal with, the lies that her parents told her, gossip, and of course love. How must it feel to fall in love with someone promised to another? will she repeat her mother's past?
It's not hard to fall in love with Colt. He is every woman's dream, including Katherine's but Colt is promised to Charley; who it seems cares more about herself than anyone else.
This is a novel full of love, mystery, and suspense. It also shows us what happens when the love of money and pride come into our lives. It also teaches us that we must lean on God for everything and to turn to him when times get troubled.
I enjoyed the author's writing and will certainly be looking forward to reading more from Elaine Manders.
When her father dies, Katherine Levinson discovers her parents have kept secrets that render her happy childhood a farce. She and her gravely ill mother face eviction, and she has no choice but to appeal to the brother she’s never seen, the famous cattle baron, Rhyan Cason. Over her gravely ill mother’s objections, they move to Nebraska and the sprawling cattle ranch, Sollano.
Instead of the warm welcome, Katherine expects, she and her mother are met with whispers and scorn in the little prairie town near Sollano. Gradually, the sins of her parents’ past surface
and Katherine begins to doubt her very identity. With her brother busy with cattle rustlers and her mother too ill to be bothered, Katherine turns to Colt Holliman, a soft-spoken neighboring rancher, for comfort.
Tired of waiting for the right woman to come along, Colt has promised to wait for Charley Ryder, an acclaimed female sharpshooter and equestrian acrobat with the Wild West Show, but it’s becoming clear Charley loves the show more than him. As his attraction to Katherine grows, he finds himself spiritually conflicted. How can he break from past commitments and follow his heart?
Then unexpected danger strikes, testing Katherine’s and Colt’s faith in God—and each other.
My Thoughts: This was a delightful novel to read, the storyline is based in Nebraska. Nebraska is known for their corn, beef , horses ,rodeos and sugar beets! I lived in Nebraska and this brought back some great memories for me. The author has done a phenomenal job of bringing the reader into the ranching life. I love that she brings in the Wild West shows as well, there is so much history from the west that people don't have any idea that living in the west is truly like and the author has given the reader a great glimpse of the history.
Katherine is such a loveable character, the reader feels her plight, her father has passed away, her mother is ill, there are bills to pay. What is she to do?
Katherine sends a letter to a brother she hasn't met which changes her life forever.
Katherine has many things to deal with, the lies that her parents told her, gossip, and of course love. How must it feel to fall in love with someone promised to another? will she repeat her mother's past?
It's not hard to fall in love with Colt. He is every woman's dream, including Katherine's but Colt is promised to Charley; who it seems cares more about herself than anyone else.
This is a novel full of love, mystery, and suspense. It also shows us what happens when the love of money and pride come into our lives. It also teaches us that we must lean on God for everything and to turn to him when times get troubled.
I enjoyed the author's writing and will certainly be looking forward to reading more from Elaine Manders.
A film with dodgy voices.
Catching up here with a review of a film I saw a couple of weeks ago.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.