Search
Search results
Destiny Map-Numerology Astrology Taro
Lifestyle and Productivity
App
- A NEW section: "How to conquer a man”. Featured by Apple as: “New and Noteworthy”,...
SinglesAroundMe - Local dating for singles
Social Networking and Lifestyle
App
Welcome to SinglesAroundMe™, the world's first and today one of the most popular social networks...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Unhinged (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
The opening credits for Unhinged paint a pretty bleak and horrific snapshot of human life, just to get us in the mood for what’s to come. Footage of actual road rage incidents, supermarket disagreements and brawls, cars crashing into each other, all while recordings of news readers talk about how stressed and angry we all are these days. I think that in the current climate, we can all appreciate just how angry the world seems to have become these last few months, and some of these scenes really hit home.
We’d already seen just how angry Russell Crowe’s character is (billed as ‘The Man’, although he later introduces himself as Tom Cooper), courtesy of a shocking little pre-credits scene. Sitting in his car at night, rain beating down on the car as he breathes heavily and pops some pills into his mouth. Slowly turning a wedding ring on his finger, he removes it, tossing it behind him onto the backseat. Taking a hammer, he gets out of the car and walks to the front door of the house he’d parked outside, before smashing it down and proceeding to use the hammer on the occupants. He’s clearly not the kind of person you want to get on the wrong side of.
The person that does manage to get on his wrong side is Rachel (Caren Pistorius), who’s also having a pretty bad day of her own. Waking up late on the sofa, we learn that she’s currently going through a divorce, with her ex-husband wanting her house. She’s also late in taking her son to school, so when they hit heavy traffic along the way, it’s the last thing she needs.
At some traffic lights, the large SUV she’s sitting behind doesn’t budge when the lights turn green, so Rachel lets out a series of long beeps on the horn, before eventually pulling around the SUV to continue on her way. Unfortunately for her though, when they hit more traffic further down the road, the SUV pulls up alongside her, and when the window rolls down, we see that it’s ‘The Man’ behind the wheel. He’s calm at first, if a little on edge, but after apologising for his mistake, demands the same from Rachel before they go their separate ways. Unfortunately though, Rachel isn’t prepared to offer an apology. “I need you to learn what a bad day is and I need you to learn how to say sorry” he growls, before Rachel pulls away, believing that to be the end of it.
What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, as ‘The Man’ relentlessly stalks Rachel through the roads and highways. Just to make things worse, ‘The Man’ manages to get hold of Rachel’s phone and starts to threaten and target her close friends and family. We’ve already seen just how Unhinged he can be, and there’s more of that as the movie progresses and he gets a chance to carry out some of those threats. He’s not just out to kill Rachel, but to give her the worst possible day he can before that moment arrives.
Crowe is suitably menacing – overweight and sweaty, taking out anyone who gets in his way and methodical in his determination to catch Rachel. The movie does try to humanise him a little at times though, as we discover that he’s been through a relationship breakdown, and was laid off work just a few weeks short of retiring, as if trying to provide some justification for his behaviour.
Unhinged comes in at just over 90 minutes and proved to be a real intense, gut wrenching roller-coaster ride. I don’t know if I was just a bit giddy at being back in the cinema for the first time since March, but I found it to be a lot of fun.
We’d already seen just how angry Russell Crowe’s character is (billed as ‘The Man’, although he later introduces himself as Tom Cooper), courtesy of a shocking little pre-credits scene. Sitting in his car at night, rain beating down on the car as he breathes heavily and pops some pills into his mouth. Slowly turning a wedding ring on his finger, he removes it, tossing it behind him onto the backseat. Taking a hammer, he gets out of the car and walks to the front door of the house he’d parked outside, before smashing it down and proceeding to use the hammer on the occupants. He’s clearly not the kind of person you want to get on the wrong side of.
The person that does manage to get on his wrong side is Rachel (Caren Pistorius), who’s also having a pretty bad day of her own. Waking up late on the sofa, we learn that she’s currently going through a divorce, with her ex-husband wanting her house. She’s also late in taking her son to school, so when they hit heavy traffic along the way, it’s the last thing she needs.
At some traffic lights, the large SUV she’s sitting behind doesn’t budge when the lights turn green, so Rachel lets out a series of long beeps on the horn, before eventually pulling around the SUV to continue on her way. Unfortunately for her though, when they hit more traffic further down the road, the SUV pulls up alongside her, and when the window rolls down, we see that it’s ‘The Man’ behind the wheel. He’s calm at first, if a little on edge, but after apologising for his mistake, demands the same from Rachel before they go their separate ways. Unfortunately though, Rachel isn’t prepared to offer an apology. “I need you to learn what a bad day is and I need you to learn how to say sorry” he growls, before Rachel pulls away, believing that to be the end of it.
What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, as ‘The Man’ relentlessly stalks Rachel through the roads and highways. Just to make things worse, ‘The Man’ manages to get hold of Rachel’s phone and starts to threaten and target her close friends and family. We’ve already seen just how Unhinged he can be, and there’s more of that as the movie progresses and he gets a chance to carry out some of those threats. He’s not just out to kill Rachel, but to give her the worst possible day he can before that moment arrives.
Crowe is suitably menacing – overweight and sweaty, taking out anyone who gets in his way and methodical in his determination to catch Rachel. The movie does try to humanise him a little at times though, as we discover that he’s been through a relationship breakdown, and was laid off work just a few weeks short of retiring, as if trying to provide some justification for his behaviour.
Unhinged comes in at just over 90 minutes and proved to be a real intense, gut wrenching roller-coaster ride. I don’t know if I was just a bit giddy at being back in the cinema for the first time since March, but I found it to be a lot of fun.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Falling Short in Books
Oct 2, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first found out about Falling Short, written by Lex Coulton, the blurb promised to be ''fresh, funny and life-affirming''. I am sorry, but no. That is not correct. This book was none of those things. It wasn’t bad at all, but I would prefer describing it as a slow-paced, and confusingly complex in an unsatisfying way.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Alpha (Shifters, #6) in Books
Mar 1, 2018
Well, that was disappointing. I'm honestly sorry that I ever read that first book (which I got free somehow?). I remember being annoyed at the spelling of the main character's name, "Faythe." I should have stopped then.
The way the plot wound up, for the most part, had no real surprises. Anybody who has followed the series has to have figured out what was going to happen by now. It's been foreshadowed - heck, shouted from the rooftops.
No, my disappointment is in the way the damned romance thing was handled.
If you've bothered to read this but haven't read the series, I'm surprised. Anyway, we have a classic love triangle between Faythe, Marc, and Jace. The setting is supposed to be current day America with a twist - the characters are werecats, part of a hidden subculture.
We all know that mainstream Americans are supposedly monogamous but more serially monogamous and closet - something - in practice. Anyway, werecat society is fiercely monogamous. Females are rare, and they're supposed to hit puberty, get married, and produce the next generation with their One True Love. Period. No other options.
So Faythe has defied tradition so far. She went to college. Good for her! She had a boyfriend there. Even better! A non-Pride boyfriend. Great! (To my way of thinking, not her subculture's). She left her guy, Marc, standing at the altar to do all that, though. Eww - not classy.
But after she goes back home, she gets back together with Marc. Hmph.
Then she "connects" with Jace. That means "has sex with." Ooo, bad idea, since she was in a committed relationship with Marc at the time. Very bad idea. But Oh, They were Grieving! Together! For her brother and his best friend, who had just been treacherously killed by enemies! So of course the way to do that, instead of talking about their memories of him, is to roll around naked in the middle of a public room, right?
Um, not the way I'd do it, but, apparently that's their way. They do their grieving with a lot more alcohol than I would too, though.
They don't get caught, at least - not then. No, an enemy figures it out due to how the three interact, and tells Marc, and he believes the enemy (because everybody believes enemies over allies in the heat of battle). And they're all too immature to put the crap behind them and just deal with the fact that they're in the middle of a "war," too.
I kept wanting to spank all of them, and it wasn't because I found any of them sexy.
I did hope, at first, that bringing Jace in as a love interest - and Faythe does repeat, over and over and over again, that she loves Jace, that it wasn't "just sex" - might mean that there was hope for some sort of surprise in the end of the book. That would have been nice, right? Something of a twist that didn't lead to an unhappy ending? I would have loved to see that!
She's going to be the first female Alpha, so why not the first Alpha with two husbands? She'll be the first Alpha who has to deal with pregnancy, so why not have one husband to protect her while she's pregnant and another to get deal with what has to be done in person? What a concept?
My hope was buoyed by the fact that Vincent deliberately developed Jase as a decent potential partner, showing him taking care of Faythe well when she's injured, supporting her as she would need to be supporting when she takes over the Pride as Alpha, and working well with Marc and others repeatedly.
Marc, on the other hand, is a jerk, slamming doors, stomping around, and doing everything but pissing on the furniture to mark his territory.
Just once, I want to see a hero or heroine walk away when someone says, "I cant live without you!" I want to see someone say, "Whoa - that's WAY unhealthy, babe! You need THERAPY!"
Instead, Faythe's father tells her to "Choose the one you can't live without." UGH. Thanks, Daddy! Codependent much?
Do I think she chose the wrong Tom? Absolutely. But - she's a spoiled brat, and she chose a jealous ass. They deserve each other. Let the sweet, loving man go find the sweet, loving woman he deserves. Hopefully he'll stop the drunken escapades and keep it in his pants from now on. Maybe Kaci will grow up to be his Tabby?
Anyway, there you have it. Volume Eleventy Billion and thirteen of How To Do Dysfunctional Relationships.
Next, please!
The way the plot wound up, for the most part, had no real surprises. Anybody who has followed the series has to have figured out what was going to happen by now. It's been foreshadowed - heck, shouted from the rooftops.
No, my disappointment is in the way the damned romance thing was handled.
If you've bothered to read this but haven't read the series, I'm surprised. Anyway, we have a classic love triangle between Faythe, Marc, and Jace. The setting is supposed to be current day America with a twist - the characters are werecats, part of a hidden subculture.
We all know that mainstream Americans are supposedly monogamous but more serially monogamous and closet - something - in practice. Anyway, werecat society is fiercely monogamous. Females are rare, and they're supposed to hit puberty, get married, and produce the next generation with their One True Love. Period. No other options.
So Faythe has defied tradition so far. She went to college. Good for her! She had a boyfriend there. Even better! A non-Pride boyfriend. Great! (To my way of thinking, not her subculture's). She left her guy, Marc, standing at the altar to do all that, though. Eww - not classy.
But after she goes back home, she gets back together with Marc. Hmph.
Then she "connects" with Jace. That means "has sex with." Ooo, bad idea, since she was in a committed relationship with Marc at the time. Very bad idea. But Oh, They were Grieving! Together! For her brother and his best friend, who had just been treacherously killed by enemies! So of course the way to do that, instead of talking about their memories of him, is to roll around naked in the middle of a public room, right?
Um, not the way I'd do it, but, apparently that's their way. They do their grieving with a lot more alcohol than I would too, though.
They don't get caught, at least - not then. No, an enemy figures it out due to how the three interact, and tells Marc, and he believes the enemy (because everybody believes enemies over allies in the heat of battle). And they're all too immature to put the crap behind them and just deal with the fact that they're in the middle of a "war," too.
I kept wanting to spank all of them, and it wasn't because I found any of them sexy.
I did hope, at first, that bringing Jace in as a love interest - and Faythe does repeat, over and over and over again, that she loves Jace, that it wasn't "just sex" - might mean that there was hope for some sort of surprise in the end of the book. That would have been nice, right? Something of a twist that didn't lead to an unhappy ending? I would have loved to see that!
She's going to be the first female Alpha, so why not the first Alpha with two husbands? She'll be the first Alpha who has to deal with pregnancy, so why not have one husband to protect her while she's pregnant and another to get deal with what has to be done in person? What a concept?
My hope was buoyed by the fact that Vincent deliberately developed Jase as a decent potential partner, showing him taking care of Faythe well when she's injured, supporting her as she would need to be supporting when she takes over the Pride as Alpha, and working well with Marc and others repeatedly.
Marc, on the other hand, is a jerk, slamming doors, stomping around, and doing everything but pissing on the furniture to mark his territory.
Just once, I want to see a hero or heroine walk away when someone says, "I cant live without you!" I want to see someone say, "Whoa - that's WAY unhealthy, babe! You need THERAPY!"
Instead, Faythe's father tells her to "Choose the one you can't live without." UGH. Thanks, Daddy! Codependent much?
Do I think she chose the wrong Tom? Absolutely. But - she's a spoiled brat, and she chose a jealous ass. They deserve each other. Let the sweet, loving man go find the sweet, loving woman he deserves. Hopefully he'll stop the drunken escapades and keep it in his pants from now on. Maybe Kaci will grow up to be his Tabby?
Anyway, there you have it. Volume Eleventy Billion and thirteen of How To Do Dysfunctional Relationships.
Next, please!
David McK (3557 KP) rated The Shepherd's Crown in Books
Jan 28, 2019
THE FINAL DISCWORLD BOOK
Those four words were always going to make a long-time Discworld reader feel quite emotional, making it hard to objectively review the novel itself: are you reviewing this last peek into Pratchett's mirror reality, or are you reviewing the entire 41-book series? I'm going to try both:
THE SERIES
The first Disworld book I read (I'm pretty sure it was [b: Pyramids|64217|Pyramids (Discworld, #7)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1439098306s/64217.jpg|968512]) wasn't actually the first in the series (that would be [b: The Colour of Magic|833512|The Colour of Magic The Illustrated Screenplay|Vadim Jean|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347346368s/833512.jpg|17589693]), although I did later go back and read the earlier works. Reading them in order released (as opposed to one of the numerous Discworld Reading Order Guides: I'm quite partial to the 'Unofficial Discworld Reading Order Guide'), you can see how Terry Pratchett's writing style evolved, how he moved from outright satire to a more subtle comedy fantasy that holds a mirror up to real-world issues. Personally, I feel he was at his best at around the mid-way point of the series (say, [b: Maskerade|64305|Maskerade The Play|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1170622047s/64305.jpg|62427] or [b: Men at Arms|7557548|Men at Arms The Play|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1353573652s/7557548.jpg|9910828], after he'd found his feet (so-to-speak), but before the 'embuggerance' of his posterior cortical atrophy set in and the novels - perhaps understandably - started becoming almost too serious.
Throughout the series, there was a rich tapestry of characters introduced, from CMOT Dibbler through to the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork, with certain groups of characters (e.g. The City Watch) effectively becoming a sub-series in their own right. One of those groups - Granny Weatherwax (first introduced in [b: Equal Rites|34507|Equal Rites (Discworld, #3; Witches, #1)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1407706800s/34507.jpg|583611] and The Witches of Lancre (first introduced in [b: Wyrd Sisters|233664|Wyrd Sisters The Play|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388363090s/233664.jpg|17589683] - would later themselves have 'guest spots' in another group of such characters, ostensibly written for Young Adult Readers but still very enjoyable for older; the Nac Mac Feegles (Crivens!) and Tiffany Aching, both of who first appeared in [b: The Wee Free Men|7881001|The Wee Free Men The Beginning (Discworld, #30 & #32)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388181365s/7881001.jpg|22017239]. Which nicely brings me to:
THE NOVEL ITSELF
'The Shepherd's Crown' sees a return of both Tiffany Aching, now a young Witch setting out on her career path, and those Nac Mac Feegles. There's a strong sense of change throughout, kicked off by the surprising early exit of a previous major character in the entire series, leading to old foes - the Elves - to try to make their way back into the world. These Elves, remember, are *not* the dainty do-gooders of Tolkien: these are nasty, malicious, self-serving creatures who last attempted to invade in [b: Lords and Ladies|34529|Lords and Ladies (Discworld, #14; Witches #4)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1469186110s/34529.jpg|1185086], before eventually being defeated by Granny Weatherwax, Nanny Ogg and Magrat Garlik. Those three characters make a return in this, as well as bit-parts for the Arch-Chancellor of Unseen University, Ponder Stibbons (and HEX) alongside King Verence and the Patrician. Despite all these, the novel, however, is really Tiffany's story, and of how she finds her feet in the circumstances into which she is rather abruptly thrown. There's also a plot element that recalls [b: Equal Rites|34507|Equal Rites (Discworld, #3; Witches, #1)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1407706800s/34507.jpg|583611]: that of a person wanting to do a role that is generally considered to be that for a member of the opposite sex.
As always, footnotes are present and correct, with the novel even raising a few laugh-out-loud moments. While the story does finish with the words 'THE END', the world itself will continue on: all that has come to an end is our ability to peek into it.
In the words of the Nac Mac Feegle: "Waily waily waily ..."
Rating for the series: 5*
Rating for the novel: 4*
Those four words were always going to make a long-time Discworld reader feel quite emotional, making it hard to objectively review the novel itself: are you reviewing this last peek into Pratchett's mirror reality, or are you reviewing the entire 41-book series? I'm going to try both:
THE SERIES
The first Disworld book I read (I'm pretty sure it was [b: Pyramids|64217|Pyramids (Discworld, #7)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1439098306s/64217.jpg|968512]) wasn't actually the first in the series (that would be [b: The Colour of Magic|833512|The Colour of Magic The Illustrated Screenplay|Vadim Jean|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347346368s/833512.jpg|17589693]), although I did later go back and read the earlier works. Reading them in order released (as opposed to one of the numerous Discworld Reading Order Guides: I'm quite partial to the 'Unofficial Discworld Reading Order Guide'), you can see how Terry Pratchett's writing style evolved, how he moved from outright satire to a more subtle comedy fantasy that holds a mirror up to real-world issues. Personally, I feel he was at his best at around the mid-way point of the series (say, [b: Maskerade|64305|Maskerade The Play|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1170622047s/64305.jpg|62427] or [b: Men at Arms|7557548|Men at Arms The Play|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1353573652s/7557548.jpg|9910828], after he'd found his feet (so-to-speak), but before the 'embuggerance' of his posterior cortical atrophy set in and the novels - perhaps understandably - started becoming almost too serious.
Throughout the series, there was a rich tapestry of characters introduced, from CMOT Dibbler through to the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork, with certain groups of characters (e.g. The City Watch) effectively becoming a sub-series in their own right. One of those groups - Granny Weatherwax (first introduced in [b: Equal Rites|34507|Equal Rites (Discworld, #3; Witches, #1)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1407706800s/34507.jpg|583611] and The Witches of Lancre (first introduced in [b: Wyrd Sisters|233664|Wyrd Sisters The Play|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388363090s/233664.jpg|17589683] - would later themselves have 'guest spots' in another group of such characters, ostensibly written for Young Adult Readers but still very enjoyable for older; the Nac Mac Feegles (Crivens!) and Tiffany Aching, both of who first appeared in [b: The Wee Free Men|7881001|The Wee Free Men The Beginning (Discworld, #30 & #32)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388181365s/7881001.jpg|22017239]. Which nicely brings me to:
THE NOVEL ITSELF
'The Shepherd's Crown' sees a return of both Tiffany Aching, now a young Witch setting out on her career path, and those Nac Mac Feegles. There's a strong sense of change throughout, kicked off by the surprising early exit of a previous major character in the entire series, leading to old foes - the Elves - to try to make their way back into the world. These Elves, remember, are *not* the dainty do-gooders of Tolkien: these are nasty, malicious, self-serving creatures who last attempted to invade in [b: Lords and Ladies|34529|Lords and Ladies (Discworld, #14; Witches #4)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1469186110s/34529.jpg|1185086], before eventually being defeated by Granny Weatherwax, Nanny Ogg and Magrat Garlik. Those three characters make a return in this, as well as bit-parts for the Arch-Chancellor of Unseen University, Ponder Stibbons (and HEX) alongside King Verence and the Patrician. Despite all these, the novel, however, is really Tiffany's story, and of how she finds her feet in the circumstances into which she is rather abruptly thrown. There's also a plot element that recalls [b: Equal Rites|34507|Equal Rites (Discworld, #3; Witches, #1)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1407706800s/34507.jpg|583611]: that of a person wanting to do a role that is generally considered to be that for a member of the opposite sex.
As always, footnotes are present and correct, with the novel even raising a few laugh-out-loud moments. While the story does finish with the words 'THE END', the world itself will continue on: all that has come to an end is our ability to peek into it.
In the words of the Nac Mac Feegle: "Waily waily waily ..."
Rating for the series: 5*
Rating for the novel: 4*
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Dead Until Dark (Sookie Stackhouse, #1) in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3262782990">Dead Until Dark</a> - ★★★★
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Book-Review-Banner-36.png?w=663&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>Dead Until Dark by Charlaine Harris is the first book in the Sookie Stackhouse series. We follow the life of Sookie, a waitress in Louisiana, who also has the ability to read people’s minds. </i></b>
When a vampire enters the bar and Sookie can’t read his mind – she is intrigued and wants to know this mysterious man better. But vampires usually mean trouble, and maybe Sookie is not really for all the troubles to start coming her way.
After watching the TV show “True Blood” and finding out that there is a book series, I had to read the books. I am usually a person that reads the books before watching the adaptations. The first book was great and I also loved the TV Show.
<b><i>I liked everyone, apart from Sookie. </i></b>
Possibly because she acts very immature at all times and behaves like a spoilt child, when others tell her no. Maybe it is the lack of fear, empathy and emotion she feels. Or maybe, it is just the fact that she feels entitled because of her special ability, and likes to talk about how people always treat her badly because she is different. I just didn’t like her at all. And given the fact that she is the main character in this series, I am wondering how I like this book. Sookie – if you don’t behave in the next books, we’re going to have some problems!
I loved this book because of the side characters. In Dead Until Dark, we meen many amazing characters that I loved who have their own stories to tell. This was something I really enjoyed, and considering I watched the TV Shows and knew some of these stories, I was actually excited to read the book version of them. It felt like I was meeting them again for the very first time. I was really hoping to meet Tara though, but she is not in the first book… Oh well. Maybe she’ll appear after? Don’t tell me if you know.
Charlaine Harris has an interesting writing style that kept me engaged. I was invested and curious throughout the whole book. I loved the adventures and the plot twists that kept coming up. The ending was meh, but considering the fact that it is a build-up for the second book, I wasn’t too surprised. It definitely gives you something to think about until you read the next book though.
<b><i>Vampire Bill was the character that intrigued me the most.</i></b>
I was so glad that he was not the usual vampire type we are used to, of the likes of Edward Cullen or the Salvatore brothers. Bill seemed more mature, more mysterious and I loved it.
I actually enjoyed the whole vampire world in this book. The rules and the hierarchy model was pleasantly surprising. It is interesting to dive in more in how the vampires respect each other depending on their ranks and age. Even though I do wish that the mythology was more followed through, it was nice to read a book where vampires are living in the society, and are more or less accepted. We could see how people still have their prejudice though, as is the example that the women who tend to hang out with vampires are called “fangbangers”, and they tend to be frowned upon by society.
<b><i>Overall, I believe Dead Until Dark is a great first book, and a promising beginning of the Sookie Stackhouse series. I will definitely be continuing the series!
Highly recommended if you are a fan of vampires, fantasy, romance and a bit of mystery, followed by many different side characters that you will instantly adore.</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3262782990">Dead Until Dark</a> - ★★★★
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Book-Review-Banner-36.png?w=663&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>Dead Until Dark by Charlaine Harris is the first book in the Sookie Stackhouse series. We follow the life of Sookie, a waitress in Louisiana, who also has the ability to read people’s minds. </i></b>
When a vampire enters the bar and Sookie can’t read his mind – she is intrigued and wants to know this mysterious man better. But vampires usually mean trouble, and maybe Sookie is not really for all the troubles to start coming her way.
After watching the TV show “True Blood” and finding out that there is a book series, I had to read the books. I am usually a person that reads the books before watching the adaptations. The first book was great and I also loved the TV Show.
<b><i>I liked everyone, apart from Sookie. </i></b>
Possibly because she acts very immature at all times and behaves like a spoilt child, when others tell her no. Maybe it is the lack of fear, empathy and emotion she feels. Or maybe, it is just the fact that she feels entitled because of her special ability, and likes to talk about how people always treat her badly because she is different. I just didn’t like her at all. And given the fact that she is the main character in this series, I am wondering how I like this book. Sookie – if you don’t behave in the next books, we’re going to have some problems!
I loved this book because of the side characters. In Dead Until Dark, we meen many amazing characters that I loved who have their own stories to tell. This was something I really enjoyed, and considering I watched the TV Shows and knew some of these stories, I was actually excited to read the book version of them. It felt like I was meeting them again for the very first time. I was really hoping to meet Tara though, but she is not in the first book… Oh well. Maybe she’ll appear after? Don’t tell me if you know.
Charlaine Harris has an interesting writing style that kept me engaged. I was invested and curious throughout the whole book. I loved the adventures and the plot twists that kept coming up. The ending was meh, but considering the fact that it is a build-up for the second book, I wasn’t too surprised. It definitely gives you something to think about until you read the next book though.
<b><i>Vampire Bill was the character that intrigued me the most.</i></b>
I was so glad that he was not the usual vampire type we are used to, of the likes of Edward Cullen or the Salvatore brothers. Bill seemed more mature, more mysterious and I loved it.
I actually enjoyed the whole vampire world in this book. The rules and the hierarchy model was pleasantly surprising. It is interesting to dive in more in how the vampires respect each other depending on their ranks and age. Even though I do wish that the mythology was more followed through, it was nice to read a book where vampires are living in the society, and are more or less accepted. We could see how people still have their prejudice though, as is the example that the women who tend to hang out with vampires are called “fangbangers”, and they tend to be frowned upon by society.
<b><i>Overall, I believe Dead Until Dark is a great first book, and a promising beginning of the Sookie Stackhouse series. I will definitely be continuing the series!
Highly recommended if you are a fan of vampires, fantasy, romance and a bit of mystery, followed by many different side characters that you will instantly adore.</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Darren (1599 KP) rated Needful Things (1993) in Movies
Aug 29, 2019
Verdict: One of King’s Most Interesting Stories
Story: Needful Things starts when Leland Gaunt (von Sydow) opens up an antique shop in the small town of Castle Rock, the shop known as Needful Things, see the locals visit, with them getting an unusually attachment to certain items in the shop, items that are clearly meant for each individual person, one that strikes a memory.
As the town starts flocking to the shop, it becomes clear that Leland has alternate plans for the town, with Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Harris) needing to investigate a new increase amount of small crimes, which slowly start to build in seriousness before the town turns to chaos.
Thoughts on Needful Things
Characters – Leland Gaunt is the mysterious shopkeeper that arrives to Castle Rock, his shop has everything the people of the town want and he knows everything about everyone in the town. He trades their desires for favours, which mostly involve going against people in the town, he knows how to remain calm through the conversations, knowing just what they want to hear. Sheriff Alan Pangborn left the big city for a quiet life, he is enjoying his life in the town, with his new fiancée, until the crime levels start to rise, which sees him going from dealing with cats in trees, to murders, can he stop the power Leland has over the town before it is too late. Polly is Alan’s fiancée, she runs the local diner opposite the new shop, she doesn’t run in like some of the other residents, which sees her witnessing the changes from the locals. Nettie is a shy former abuse victim that becomes one of the first customers of the shop, showing how easily people can like what he is willing to offer. We do get a string of people that start to get caught in his ideas.
Performances – Max von Sydow is wonderful to watch in this film, he gives the character the mystery and charisma he needs to seem like a friendly person. Ed Harris is always good to watch, here he does the small town cop routine with ease, playing a good man who must help his people. Bennie Bedelia is strong without getting enough important early scenes to make us understand how disturbed her character’s life is.
Story – The story here follows a small town that gets a new visitor in a shopkeeper that soon starts giving the locals everything they ever wanted, for a price, which sees the town turn to chaos and the sheriff needing to solve the problem before it is too late. This is one of the most interesting of the Stephen King stories, it looks at human desires taking control over our own sanity, how one town can be turned upside down by the ideas of what could be ours, rather than giving us what we need. The story is shown to unfold at a delightful pace because it shows how the deals are put in place with each deal, slowly starting to growing from disruptive behaviour right up to murder. The story does rely on the idea of town working together to prove themselves.
Fantasy/Horror – The fantasy side of the film shows just how Leland can bring about whatever the person in the town wants, he can make the impossible, possible, which only plays into the horrors of just what he can do to this world, when people get everything they ever wanted.
Settings – The film is set in the small town of Castle Rock, this is one location where everybody knows each other, which is one of the trademarks for any Stephen King novel.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are very simple, they do play into the idea of fantasy elements, when we see just what will happen with the power given to the people.
Scene of the Movie – He is a monster.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel like it could have gone a lot darker.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the more underrated of Stephen King’s adaptions, it gives us a perfect moral dilemma and keeps everything feel a lot more grounded for a horror one.
Overall: Entertaining throughout.
Story: Needful Things starts when Leland Gaunt (von Sydow) opens up an antique shop in the small town of Castle Rock, the shop known as Needful Things, see the locals visit, with them getting an unusually attachment to certain items in the shop, items that are clearly meant for each individual person, one that strikes a memory.
As the town starts flocking to the shop, it becomes clear that Leland has alternate plans for the town, with Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Harris) needing to investigate a new increase amount of small crimes, which slowly start to build in seriousness before the town turns to chaos.
Thoughts on Needful Things
Characters – Leland Gaunt is the mysterious shopkeeper that arrives to Castle Rock, his shop has everything the people of the town want and he knows everything about everyone in the town. He trades their desires for favours, which mostly involve going against people in the town, he knows how to remain calm through the conversations, knowing just what they want to hear. Sheriff Alan Pangborn left the big city for a quiet life, he is enjoying his life in the town, with his new fiancée, until the crime levels start to rise, which sees him going from dealing with cats in trees, to murders, can he stop the power Leland has over the town before it is too late. Polly is Alan’s fiancée, she runs the local diner opposite the new shop, she doesn’t run in like some of the other residents, which sees her witnessing the changes from the locals. Nettie is a shy former abuse victim that becomes one of the first customers of the shop, showing how easily people can like what he is willing to offer. We do get a string of people that start to get caught in his ideas.
Performances – Max von Sydow is wonderful to watch in this film, he gives the character the mystery and charisma he needs to seem like a friendly person. Ed Harris is always good to watch, here he does the small town cop routine with ease, playing a good man who must help his people. Bennie Bedelia is strong without getting enough important early scenes to make us understand how disturbed her character’s life is.
Story – The story here follows a small town that gets a new visitor in a shopkeeper that soon starts giving the locals everything they ever wanted, for a price, which sees the town turn to chaos and the sheriff needing to solve the problem before it is too late. This is one of the most interesting of the Stephen King stories, it looks at human desires taking control over our own sanity, how one town can be turned upside down by the ideas of what could be ours, rather than giving us what we need. The story is shown to unfold at a delightful pace because it shows how the deals are put in place with each deal, slowly starting to growing from disruptive behaviour right up to murder. The story does rely on the idea of town working together to prove themselves.
Fantasy/Horror – The fantasy side of the film shows just how Leland can bring about whatever the person in the town wants, he can make the impossible, possible, which only plays into the horrors of just what he can do to this world, when people get everything they ever wanted.
Settings – The film is set in the small town of Castle Rock, this is one location where everybody knows each other, which is one of the trademarks for any Stephen King novel.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are very simple, they do play into the idea of fantasy elements, when we see just what will happen with the power given to the people.
Scene of the Movie – He is a monster.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel like it could have gone a lot darker.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the more underrated of Stephen King’s adaptions, it gives us a perfect moral dilemma and keeps everything feel a lot more grounded for a horror one.
Overall: Entertaining throughout.
Kelly J Tyrrell (3 KP) rated Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again in Books
May 21, 2018
Truly Inspired
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a book review for the not-yet-released Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again by Rachel Held Evans. This book is available in stores June 12th, but you can pre-order it at rachelheldevans.com.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017
Four Lads Who Shook The World
Last night the Ron Howard directed Beatles documentary, Eight Days A Week: The Touring Years, premiered in London. As much as I would have loved to attend the premier, I have just started a new year at university and couldn’t afford to go both financially and educationally. Therefore I had to settle for going to see it in my local cinema, but it was still an awesome experience. From six o’clock, the cinema streamed the premier in London, hosted by John Bishop and Edith Bowman and featuring interviews from Ron Howard, Paul and Ringo. Then the cinema auctioned off a poster for the film for charity, (which went for £100 if you are curious,) then finally the film started.
It is a fantastic insight into what went on during the years of Beatlemania while the Beatles were on tour and what they were like as people in those more innocent days. The music is of course fantastic, but even for someone who isn’t a massive Beatles fan I think that this documentary is still relevant and tells of an important piece of recent history in an exciting, stylish way.
There are some gripes I have with the movie though, the first one being a case of some revisionist history. The only talk about the group taking any form of drugs was a blink and you’ll miss it mention of them smoking dope on the set of Help, there was no mention of them smoking a joint in the toilets in Buckingham Palace while waiting to receive their MBE’s, there was also no mention of the fact that John returned his MBE and they didn’t even mention the amount of acid they took whilst in India and in the later days. Also, all of John’s more offensive behaviour has been vastly censored and toned down. There is footage of the Beatles first American concert at the Coliseum in Washington D.C, where Paul introduces the band and asks the audience to ‘clap their hands and stomp their feet,’ as Paul is saying this John appears to be impersonating a handicapped person doing exaggerated clapping and stomping movements, which is something he did repeatedly during their first American tour, but in the film they cut away to the audience during this to avoid showing John being offensive. We also never see the footage from their Royal Variety performance, when John told the people in the poor seats to clap their hands and the rich people, including the Royal family, to just rattle their jewellery. I don’t know why they are trying to make John look like an innocent saint when he was never like that, he was always rebellious and cheeky and was never afraid to say what was on his mind. The second gripe I have is more of a personal one in that us hardcore Beatles fans were promised a story that had never been told and while there was some footage that I hadn’t seen before, I wasn’t exactly mind blown by the story that the footage told as there was very little in the film that I didn’t already know about. However despite these minor gripes the movie is fantastic, an immense story told by a master filmmaker about the greatest band in history, what’s not to love?
It is a fantastic insight into what went on during the years of Beatlemania while the Beatles were on tour and what they were like as people in those more innocent days. The music is of course fantastic, but even for someone who isn’t a massive Beatles fan I think that this documentary is still relevant and tells of an important piece of recent history in an exciting, stylish way.
There are some gripes I have with the movie though, the first one being a case of some revisionist history. The only talk about the group taking any form of drugs was a blink and you’ll miss it mention of them smoking dope on the set of Help, there was no mention of them smoking a joint in the toilets in Buckingham Palace while waiting to receive their MBE’s, there was also no mention of the fact that John returned his MBE and they didn’t even mention the amount of acid they took whilst in India and in the later days. Also, all of John’s more offensive behaviour has been vastly censored and toned down. There is footage of the Beatles first American concert at the Coliseum in Washington D.C, where Paul introduces the band and asks the audience to ‘clap their hands and stomp their feet,’ as Paul is saying this John appears to be impersonating a handicapped person doing exaggerated clapping and stomping movements, which is something he did repeatedly during their first American tour, but in the film they cut away to the audience during this to avoid showing John being offensive. We also never see the footage from their Royal Variety performance, when John told the people in the poor seats to clap their hands and the rich people, including the Royal family, to just rattle their jewellery. I don’t know why they are trying to make John look like an innocent saint when he was never like that, he was always rebellious and cheeky and was never afraid to say what was on his mind. The second gripe I have is more of a personal one in that us hardcore Beatles fans were promised a story that had never been told and while there was some footage that I hadn’t seen before, I wasn’t exactly mind blown by the story that the footage told as there was very little in the film that I didn’t already know about. However despite these minor gripes the movie is fantastic, an immense story told by a master filmmaker about the greatest band in history, what’s not to love?