Search
The World According to Trump: Humble Words from the Man Who Would be King, President, Ruler of the World
Book
"I don't put on any airs," Donald J Trump once told a journalist, from behind his "100% mahogany"...
Watch the Lady
Book
The Queen's God Daughter. Her Most Trusted Maid. Adultress. Enemy Of The State. Who is The Real...
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Wolf Den in Books
Jun 17, 2021
(As you may expect from the subject matter of this book, I am highlighting trigger warnings of rape, sexual abuse, violence, slavery and suicide.)
“May I know love’s power, if never its sweetness.”
The Wolf Den is a magnifying glass into the world of Pompeii’s prostitutes: forgotten women who are owned and controlled by both men and society. This no-holds-barred novel follows Amara, a beautiful and educated doctor’s daughter who was enslaved after the death of her father and now is a she-wolf, a prostitute in Pompeii’s largest brothel, The Wolf Den.
Elodie Harper’s novel is told entirely from Amara’s perspective. This gives our main character a rare sense of power, the power to provide names to these previously nameless women and to make the reader care for these women, becoming entirely invested in their story. Alongside Amara; Dido, Victoria, Cressa, Beronice and Britannica experience violence, desperation, pain and loss but also highlight the power of friendship. This is not an easy read at all but Harper’s characters are so captivating it was impossible to put this book down.
Amara herself is such a complex character: she has an overwhelming amount of inner strength as she accepts her fate as a slave. At times this is heart-breaking when you gain glimpses of her previous life but accepting her fate does not mean Amara ever stops striving for freedom. She may have to change her idea of what happily ever after consists of but Amara will never stop working towards it, no matter the cost.
By no means is Amara perfect, there are definitely some questionable actions by our protagonist. However, Harper paints the she-wolves lives so acutely and tragically that the reader can never blame Amara: we don’t always agree with her actions but you can see that she has to protect herself because she literally has no one else to do it for her.
Amara is also clever, sometimes too clever for her owner Felix who is quick to punish her for speaking out of turn. However, once Amara proves that her previous education can be profitable, Felix is on board, taking Amara down a new path and raising the reader’s hopes of a happy outcome for our favourite she-wolf. This is a credit to the characterisation within this novel: that as the readers witness possible happy endings being ripped away, our sheer desperation increases with Amara’s.
Despite her fascinating characters, Elodie Harper does not rest on her laurels and completely immerses her readers in the landscape of Pompeii. From the filthy cobbled streets to the graffiti to the shops, inns and sellers in the forum, everything is described in the most magnificent historical detail.
Harper also entrenches her characters in the class system, whereby a customer of a higher social status is often a target but seemingly out of reach for the she-wolves: a lower class of man is easy to attract but can often be violent. And love? Well that is just a fantasy!
Initially I have to tell you that I was slightly disappointed by the ending of The Wolf Den: the chapters leading up to the finale were so emotional and action-packed that the final lines almost fell flat. HOWEVER, this was all turned on its head when I was told The Wolf Den is merely the first in a trilogy! Now that I know Amara will be back I am eager to see what else she has in store for us.
Thank you to Netgalley for the opportunity to read this e-ARC in exchange for an honest review.
“May I know love’s power, if never its sweetness.”
The Wolf Den is a magnifying glass into the world of Pompeii’s prostitutes: forgotten women who are owned and controlled by both men and society. This no-holds-barred novel follows Amara, a beautiful and educated doctor’s daughter who was enslaved after the death of her father and now is a she-wolf, a prostitute in Pompeii’s largest brothel, The Wolf Den.
Elodie Harper’s novel is told entirely from Amara’s perspective. This gives our main character a rare sense of power, the power to provide names to these previously nameless women and to make the reader care for these women, becoming entirely invested in their story. Alongside Amara; Dido, Victoria, Cressa, Beronice and Britannica experience violence, desperation, pain and loss but also highlight the power of friendship. This is not an easy read at all but Harper’s characters are so captivating it was impossible to put this book down.
Amara herself is such a complex character: she has an overwhelming amount of inner strength as she accepts her fate as a slave. At times this is heart-breaking when you gain glimpses of her previous life but accepting her fate does not mean Amara ever stops striving for freedom. She may have to change her idea of what happily ever after consists of but Amara will never stop working towards it, no matter the cost.
By no means is Amara perfect, there are definitely some questionable actions by our protagonist. However, Harper paints the she-wolves lives so acutely and tragically that the reader can never blame Amara: we don’t always agree with her actions but you can see that she has to protect herself because she literally has no one else to do it for her.
Amara is also clever, sometimes too clever for her owner Felix who is quick to punish her for speaking out of turn. However, once Amara proves that her previous education can be profitable, Felix is on board, taking Amara down a new path and raising the reader’s hopes of a happy outcome for our favourite she-wolf. This is a credit to the characterisation within this novel: that as the readers witness possible happy endings being ripped away, our sheer desperation increases with Amara’s.
Despite her fascinating characters, Elodie Harper does not rest on her laurels and completely immerses her readers in the landscape of Pompeii. From the filthy cobbled streets to the graffiti to the shops, inns and sellers in the forum, everything is described in the most magnificent historical detail.
Harper also entrenches her characters in the class system, whereby a customer of a higher social status is often a target but seemingly out of reach for the she-wolves: a lower class of man is easy to attract but can often be violent. And love? Well that is just a fantasy!
Initially I have to tell you that I was slightly disappointed by the ending of The Wolf Den: the chapters leading up to the finale were so emotional and action-packed that the final lines almost fell flat. HOWEVER, this was all turned on its head when I was told The Wolf Den is merely the first in a trilogy! Now that I know Amara will be back I am eager to see what else she has in store for us.
Thank you to Netgalley for the opportunity to read this e-ARC in exchange for an honest review.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The length of time it’s taken me to catch this one at the cinema belies my lukewarm interest in the material: I’m not a ‘fan boy’ for either Marvel or DC properties. As it turns out, writer/director David “Fury” Ayer’s Suicide Squad is just plain frustrating in cinematic terms.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated My Sister's Keeper in Books
Dec 7, 2018
“If you use one of your children to save the life of another, are you being a good mother or a very bad one?”
<i>My Sister’s Keeper </i>was the first Jodi Picoult novel I read. (I have since read all Picoult’s books to date) I was not expecting much when I first picked it up, especially as I was reading it for a medical ethics module at college. Yet this book rekindled my love of reading and suddenly, after only reading one story, I was asking for Jodi Picoult books for my birthday.
Many people may be familiar with the storyline, even if they have not read the book, as <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> shot to fame when the film version hit the cinemas. Thirteen-year-old Anna Fitzgerald was Rhode Islands first genetically engineered baby, created with the purpose of providing her older sister Kate with the means to survive acute promyelocytic leukemia. However over the next few years Kate relapses resulting in Anna going under numerous procedures, such as bone marrow extraction, in order to save Kate’s life. Now things have got so bad that Kate will die unless Anna gives up one of her kidneys, yet unwilling to do this Anna hires a lawyer, Campbell Alexander, to sue her parents for the rights of her own body.
From reading a synopsis the reader can already see that <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is going to be an emotional story, but what was it that made me love the author so much?
The story was told from six points of view: Anna, Jesse (older brother), Sara (mother), Brian (father), Campbell and Julie (guardian ad litem). Notice that Kate was not one of the narrators, which leads us to speculate from the very start that Anna wins the case and Kate dies. Despite the six main characters there is no antagonist – unless you count cancer – and in all of them the reader can find something relatable.
In one of the chapters, Jesse pronounces that Kate is the martyr, Anna the peacekeeper and himself the lost cause. With Anna we can recognize the struggle to follow the decisions laid down for us by other people – a time when we have no choice of our own. Jesse represents the times when we have been ignored and forgotten because of bigger or more important events, thus resulting in attention seeking behaviour. Brian, the firefighter, the man who wants to save everyone, cannot put out the metaphorical fire that is his family. Sara, whose narrative starts in the past rather than present day, shows us how easy it is to get wrapped up in one problem (or daughter), ignoring everything (or everyone) else.
One thing that is great about all Picoult’s novels is that they are not focused on one storyline. Granted this book is focused on the trial and Kate’s illness, but the inclusion of Campbell and Julia’s voices provide an interesting subplot. Julia is not exactly thrilled to discover that she will be working alongside Campbell, a person she knew from school that she had a difficult past with. Since then Julia has found herself unlucky in love and blames Campbell for this. Campbell on the other hand has been having trouble of his own and now needs a service dog with him at all times. Yet he is self conscious about people knowing the true reason behind this and often comes up with creative lies to stop people from asking questions. “Maybe if God gives you a handicap, he makes sure you’ve got a few extra doses of humor to take the edge off.”
Another reason Picoult’s books are so great is that the reader learns something every time. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is full of medical and legal jargon, which may go over some people’s heads, but it is also bursting with random bits of knowledge, for example the way a fire should be treated, facts about astronomy and many other interesting details that the characters use as metaphors to describe their experiences.
Without taking into account Picoult’s novels and writing style as a whole, <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is a story that will stay in people’s hearts and minds for a long time. It is never revealed who the narrator of the prologue was, but we immediately assume that it is Anna and that she wants Kate to die. By the end, we are still unsure who the character was but if it was Anna we see it in a completely different light. This is not a book about whether it is ethical for Anna to be Kate’s donor; it is not a story about cancer. Instead it is a message about the right for each person to have choices in regards to their lives.
A warning to potential readers: this book could break your heart, shock you or leave you in tears. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is full of irony. Some of that makes up part of the story line, for instance Jesse’s experimentation with arson – fires that are then put out by his father. But the biggest sense of irony, the biggest shock is the ending (FYI this is the complete opposite to the film ending). After everything that has been achieved, devastating circumstances result in the same conclusion that it would have had Anna sat back and done nothing. Yet this does not make it a pointless story, despite Anna’s actions almost tearing the family apart, it also wakes them from the stupor that Kate’s illness has put them in and makes them realise how precious everything else in their life is too.
I highly recommend this book to everyone, and if you have not read a Jodi Picoult novel before I strongly suggest you begin with this one. It is suitable for adult and adolescent readers, especially those who like to think about hypothetical, moral questions. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> definitely gets you questioning your own choices and actions within your own life and may even make you view the world slightly differently.
<i>My Sister’s Keeper </i>was the first Jodi Picoult novel I read. (I have since read all Picoult’s books to date) I was not expecting much when I first picked it up, especially as I was reading it for a medical ethics module at college. Yet this book rekindled my love of reading and suddenly, after only reading one story, I was asking for Jodi Picoult books for my birthday.
Many people may be familiar with the storyline, even if they have not read the book, as <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> shot to fame when the film version hit the cinemas. Thirteen-year-old Anna Fitzgerald was Rhode Islands first genetically engineered baby, created with the purpose of providing her older sister Kate with the means to survive acute promyelocytic leukemia. However over the next few years Kate relapses resulting in Anna going under numerous procedures, such as bone marrow extraction, in order to save Kate’s life. Now things have got so bad that Kate will die unless Anna gives up one of her kidneys, yet unwilling to do this Anna hires a lawyer, Campbell Alexander, to sue her parents for the rights of her own body.
From reading a synopsis the reader can already see that <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is going to be an emotional story, but what was it that made me love the author so much?
The story was told from six points of view: Anna, Jesse (older brother), Sara (mother), Brian (father), Campbell and Julie (guardian ad litem). Notice that Kate was not one of the narrators, which leads us to speculate from the very start that Anna wins the case and Kate dies. Despite the six main characters there is no antagonist – unless you count cancer – and in all of them the reader can find something relatable.
In one of the chapters, Jesse pronounces that Kate is the martyr, Anna the peacekeeper and himself the lost cause. With Anna we can recognize the struggle to follow the decisions laid down for us by other people – a time when we have no choice of our own. Jesse represents the times when we have been ignored and forgotten because of bigger or more important events, thus resulting in attention seeking behaviour. Brian, the firefighter, the man who wants to save everyone, cannot put out the metaphorical fire that is his family. Sara, whose narrative starts in the past rather than present day, shows us how easy it is to get wrapped up in one problem (or daughter), ignoring everything (or everyone) else.
One thing that is great about all Picoult’s novels is that they are not focused on one storyline. Granted this book is focused on the trial and Kate’s illness, but the inclusion of Campbell and Julia’s voices provide an interesting subplot. Julia is not exactly thrilled to discover that she will be working alongside Campbell, a person she knew from school that she had a difficult past with. Since then Julia has found herself unlucky in love and blames Campbell for this. Campbell on the other hand has been having trouble of his own and now needs a service dog with him at all times. Yet he is self conscious about people knowing the true reason behind this and often comes up with creative lies to stop people from asking questions. “Maybe if God gives you a handicap, he makes sure you’ve got a few extra doses of humor to take the edge off.”
Another reason Picoult’s books are so great is that the reader learns something every time. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is full of medical and legal jargon, which may go over some people’s heads, but it is also bursting with random bits of knowledge, for example the way a fire should be treated, facts about astronomy and many other interesting details that the characters use as metaphors to describe their experiences.
Without taking into account Picoult’s novels and writing style as a whole, <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is a story that will stay in people’s hearts and minds for a long time. It is never revealed who the narrator of the prologue was, but we immediately assume that it is Anna and that she wants Kate to die. By the end, we are still unsure who the character was but if it was Anna we see it in a completely different light. This is not a book about whether it is ethical for Anna to be Kate’s donor; it is not a story about cancer. Instead it is a message about the right for each person to have choices in regards to their lives.
A warning to potential readers: this book could break your heart, shock you or leave you in tears. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is full of irony. Some of that makes up part of the story line, for instance Jesse’s experimentation with arson – fires that are then put out by his father. But the biggest sense of irony, the biggest shock is the ending (FYI this is the complete opposite to the film ending). After everything that has been achieved, devastating circumstances result in the same conclusion that it would have had Anna sat back and done nothing. Yet this does not make it a pointless story, despite Anna’s actions almost tearing the family apart, it also wakes them from the stupor that Kate’s illness has put them in and makes them realise how precious everything else in their life is too.
I highly recommend this book to everyone, and if you have not read a Jodi Picoult novel before I strongly suggest you begin with this one. It is suitable for adult and adolescent readers, especially those who like to think about hypothetical, moral questions. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> definitely gets you questioning your own choices and actions within your own life and may even make you view the world slightly differently.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Contains little tomb raiding
Academy Award-winner Alicia Vikander is probably not the first choice for many to portray legendary video game character, Lara Croft. Perhaps Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman or even Keira Knightley would have been above Vikander to be in with a shot of bagging the role?
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
Aaron Falk is an investigator for the federal police in Melbourne. There, he follows money trails left by criminals. And while he may live a rather solitary life, at least he's also left behind his childhood home of Kiewarra, where the locals literally ran him and his father out of town. But all that changes when Aaron finds out that his best friend in Kiewarra, Luke Hadler, is dead. So is Luke's wife, Karen, and their young son, Billy. Luke apparently killed Karen and Billy before turning the gun on himself: the only person he spared in his family was his baby daughter, Charlotte. Aaron grew up as a second son to Luke's parents, and they call on him now to look into Luke and Karen's finances. Were things really so bad that Luke would enact such violence? As Aaron and the local police sergeant, Raco, begin investigating, it's quickly apparent that the case isn't as cut and dried as it seems. But the people of Kiewarra have long memories, and they still blame Aaron for something that happened over 20 years ago. Is Aaron safe in his hometown? And can he clear Luke's name--if it even needs clearing?
I have been hearing about THE DRY since before its release and wasn't sure it would live up to the hype, but I was wrong. I really, really enjoyed this novel and read it over the span of about 24 hours. My only regret about the entire experience was that it was over so quickly. This was an incredibly well-written, interesting, and intricately plotted novel that just flowed effortlessly. The story at its core is a dark one, and the town of Kiewarra is a sad and depressing place: the townspeople find it easy to believe Luke killed his family because everyone is down on their luck. The town is plagued by a horrible drought (hence the title), which spells certain doom for a community that makes it living primarily on farming. Luke and Karen had bought their farm from Luke's parents, and many think he killed himself because the farm couldn't remain profitable. Harper does an excellent job at portraying the people of Kiewarra--the small town town becomes almost another character in the novel. She does an excellent job of depicting depressed small town living.
In fact, I loved all the nuanced characters in THE DRY. You know when an author just captures her characters' voices perfectly? That was this book for me. Falk just slides effortlessly off the page, and I was completely taken with Sergeant Raco, as well. But you can also easily visualize all the people in Kiewarra that Aaron encounters. While the story primarily takes place in the present-day, we get key flashbacks to the past, when Luke and Aaron were teens, and they hung out with two other kids, Gretchen and Ellie. The slow buildup to a big event surrounding this foursome also creates incredible suspense, as both stories (what happened with Luke and family and what happened when all four were kids) unravel in parallel. It's remarkably well-done.
I enjoyed how the story kept me guessing the entire time, which isn't easy to do. Even when I had a decent inkling what happened with Luke, there was still so much I hadn't figured out. I was completely captivated by the story and frantically turning the pages to find out what had happened--both in the present and the past. I could see the setting, the people, and the town so clearly. The novel truly hooked me from the very beginning and never let me go.
I'm very excited to see that this might be a series featuring Aaron, as I really loved his character and Harper's writing. I read a lot of thrillers, but this one packaged everything together perfectly, and I highly recommend it. 4.5 stars.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
I have been hearing about THE DRY since before its release and wasn't sure it would live up to the hype, but I was wrong. I really, really enjoyed this novel and read it over the span of about 24 hours. My only regret about the entire experience was that it was over so quickly. This was an incredibly well-written, interesting, and intricately plotted novel that just flowed effortlessly. The story at its core is a dark one, and the town of Kiewarra is a sad and depressing place: the townspeople find it easy to believe Luke killed his family because everyone is down on their luck. The town is plagued by a horrible drought (hence the title), which spells certain doom for a community that makes it living primarily on farming. Luke and Karen had bought their farm from Luke's parents, and many think he killed himself because the farm couldn't remain profitable. Harper does an excellent job at portraying the people of Kiewarra--the small town town becomes almost another character in the novel. She does an excellent job of depicting depressed small town living.
In fact, I loved all the nuanced characters in THE DRY. You know when an author just captures her characters' voices perfectly? That was this book for me. Falk just slides effortlessly off the page, and I was completely taken with Sergeant Raco, as well. But you can also easily visualize all the people in Kiewarra that Aaron encounters. While the story primarily takes place in the present-day, we get key flashbacks to the past, when Luke and Aaron were teens, and they hung out with two other kids, Gretchen and Ellie. The slow buildup to a big event surrounding this foursome also creates incredible suspense, as both stories (what happened with Luke and family and what happened when all four were kids) unravel in parallel. It's remarkably well-done.
I enjoyed how the story kept me guessing the entire time, which isn't easy to do. Even when I had a decent inkling what happened with Luke, there was still so much I hadn't figured out. I was completely captivated by the story and frantically turning the pages to find out what had happened--both in the present and the past. I could see the setting, the people, and the town so clearly. The novel truly hooked me from the very beginning and never let me go.
I'm very excited to see that this might be a series featuring Aaron, as I really loved his character and Harper's writing. I read a lot of thrillers, but this one packaged everything together perfectly, and I highly recommend it. 4.5 stars.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;