Search
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Dracula was written by author Bram Stoker during the late 1890's and is set around the character of Dracula and his attempt to move from Transylvania to England so he can spread the curse of the undead (I.e. the creation of more vampires). English solicitor Jonathan Harker who'd originally gone to Transylvania to be legal aide for Dracula stops him with the help of Van Helsing and others which ends the life of one of them – Quincey-, the book ends with a note from Jonathan Harker that several people lived happily married and Jonathan has a son nicknamed for Quincey.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Curvature (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
If there’s any particular genre i’m particularly keen too, it’s science fiction. Books, movies, television, comics, you name it. I’ve been watching the old school versions of ‘The Twilight Zone’ and ‘The Outer Limits’ since I was like 5 years old (that could explain quite a few things actually). As far as movies? That’s going to lead only to the past, the future, other dimensions, etc. If you had to nail it down even further within the genre of science fiction, I’d have to go right to anything revolving around time travel. That’s where today’s film for your consideration comes in. This one in particular doesn’t seem to be getting the credit it deserves and although it’s a bit rough around the edges, I think it also deserves a shot.
‘Curvature’ is a 2017 science fiction/thriller film (released on February 23rd of this year) written by Brian DeLeeuw and directed by Diego Hallivis. The film stars Lyndsy Fonseca, Noah Bean, Glenn Morshower, Zach Avery, Alex Lanipekun, and Linda Hamilton (yes … THEE Linda Hamilton as in ‘Sarah Conner’).
Helen (Fonseca) is grieving the lose of her husband Wells (Bean) in the aftermath of his suicide. Not long after, Wells’s colleague Tomas (Morshower) seeks her out and asks for her blessing to continue the research project that he and Wells were involved in. Being an engineer and a scientist herself, she agrees and not long after returns to work trying to confront the grief as best she can with the guidance and help of her mentor Florence (Hamilton). Without warning, Helen succumbs to a blackout and awakens several days later. Upon awakening at home, she learns that several days have passed and receives a phone call …. from HERSELF. Helen warns herself to get out of the house as soon as possible as a man in a black BMW is coming to the house to kill her. In the confusion that follows, she manages to barely escape and seek out her friend Alex. What follows is a story of deceit, betrayal, and a conspiracy that goes beyond what Helen could imagine where she can’t trust anyone … not even her future self.
Obviously, i’m biased her being partial to the genre. That being said .. this movie is was, is, and will be excellent. 4 out of 5 stars. What impressed me about the film was how well the writing went with the talent of all the actors involved. My only real complaint, is that I wish they had incorporated more dialogue into the 90 minute movie. It’s almost like they sacrificed time between characters for the special effects which I will say, were absolutely awesome for an independent film. The film fell somewhere between a movie and a television episode as far as the experience. I would’ve preferred it to be one or the other and not in between if that makes any sense. However, I was still blown away by the film and will gladly watch it again and add it to my library at the first opportunity. Not to give too much of the film away, one thing I found unique about this particular time-travel film is how the writer came up with the concept that the nature of the ‘experiment’ allowed for someone to only go back so far into the past between a few hours and a few days limiting how far back you could alter history so-to-speak. The intent wasn’t necessarily to save because too much time had passed … but to ‘stop’. As for the ‘star power of the film’, I saw it as a tip of the hat to other films in the time travel genre. This film definitely deserves a place in the science fiction/time travel library. Take my suggestion and give it a look.
‘Curvature’ is a 2017 science fiction/thriller film (released on February 23rd of this year) written by Brian DeLeeuw and directed by Diego Hallivis. The film stars Lyndsy Fonseca, Noah Bean, Glenn Morshower, Zach Avery, Alex Lanipekun, and Linda Hamilton (yes … THEE Linda Hamilton as in ‘Sarah Conner’).
Helen (Fonseca) is grieving the lose of her husband Wells (Bean) in the aftermath of his suicide. Not long after, Wells’s colleague Tomas (Morshower) seeks her out and asks for her blessing to continue the research project that he and Wells were involved in. Being an engineer and a scientist herself, she agrees and not long after returns to work trying to confront the grief as best she can with the guidance and help of her mentor Florence (Hamilton). Without warning, Helen succumbs to a blackout and awakens several days later. Upon awakening at home, she learns that several days have passed and receives a phone call …. from HERSELF. Helen warns herself to get out of the house as soon as possible as a man in a black BMW is coming to the house to kill her. In the confusion that follows, she manages to barely escape and seek out her friend Alex. What follows is a story of deceit, betrayal, and a conspiracy that goes beyond what Helen could imagine where she can’t trust anyone … not even her future self.
Obviously, i’m biased her being partial to the genre. That being said .. this movie is was, is, and will be excellent. 4 out of 5 stars. What impressed me about the film was how well the writing went with the talent of all the actors involved. My only real complaint, is that I wish they had incorporated more dialogue into the 90 minute movie. It’s almost like they sacrificed time between characters for the special effects which I will say, were absolutely awesome for an independent film. The film fell somewhere between a movie and a television episode as far as the experience. I would’ve preferred it to be one or the other and not in between if that makes any sense. However, I was still blown away by the film and will gladly watch it again and add it to my library at the first opportunity. Not to give too much of the film away, one thing I found unique about this particular time-travel film is how the writer came up with the concept that the nature of the ‘experiment’ allowed for someone to only go back so far into the past between a few hours and a few days limiting how far back you could alter history so-to-speak. The intent wasn’t necessarily to save because too much time had passed … but to ‘stop’. As for the ‘star power of the film’, I saw it as a tip of the hat to other films in the time travel genre. This film definitely deserves a place in the science fiction/time travel library. Take my suggestion and give it a look.
LearnEnglish Kids: Playtime
Education and Entertainment
App
Read and watch fun animated songs and stories to help your child develop in key areas in English:...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Infernal
Dan Brown has had a bad rap over the years from snobbish reviewers who dismiss his work as “trash”. I’m sure to a large degree the multi-millionaire Dan Brown couldn’t give a toss! I personally enjoyed both the books and Ron Howard’s films of “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons” as glossy escapism. Occasionally though books will generate a “WHHAAAT??” moment and Brown’s 2013 novel “Inferno” generated just such a response in its dramatic conclusion… and (for me at least) not in a good way. As someone always looking at script potential in books, the words “unfilmable” came to mind. So veteran screenwriter David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”, “Mission Impossible”, “Spiderman”) is to be congratulated in ‘adapting’ the story to provide a coherent screenplay.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Light Between Oceans (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You only have to forgive once. To resent, you have to do it all day, every day”.
In my review of “The Two Faces of January” I described it as a film that “will be particularly enjoyed by older viewers who remember when story and location were put far ahead of CGI-based special effects”. In watching this film I was again linking in my mind to that earlier film… and that was before the lead character suddenly brought up the two faces of Janus!
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Hadley (567 KP) rated Handbook of Paranormal Powers in Books
Jun 2, 2019
I have always believed in the paranormal, but I am careful not to take everything at face value. When I picked up this book, I unfortunately took it at its face value, thinking that it was about how people developed these paranormal abilities and the things that they achieved with them.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Legend of Hell House (1973) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Mr. Rudolph Deutsch has hired Lionel Barrett to investigate a haunted house. This isn't any normal haunted house though. It seems as though anyone who enters the house either leaves the house insane or winds up dead. In addition to Mr Barrett, his wife, Ann Barrett, a mental medium named Florence Tanner, and a physical medium who is also the only survivor of the last team of investigators to visit the house named Benjamin Fischer are all visiting Hell House to try and solve this phenomenon. $100,000 is theirs for the taking if they can do it within a week, but will they be able to survive what's caged inside Hell House? Emeric Belasco, a self-proclaimed genius ahead of his time, may have other plans.
The Legend of Hell House isn't your average horror film about paranormal activity. I'll be up front with you right now, I'm not a big fan of movies about ghosts. I'm just not. I've come across a few that were decent, but I didn't think they were anything special or I just wound up not liking them at all. I actually liked this a lot more than I thought I would. The film isn't heavy on blood, gore, or cheap scares. In fact, more often than not, the scares come from what you don't see rather than what you actually do.
The acting is definitely a strong point in the film. The entire cast has their moments of brilliance during the insanity Hell House is putting them through, but Roddy McDowall is the actor who stands out amonst the rest. His performance just seems to outshine everyone else and he steals just about every scene he's in. There's a scene in the film where he starts screaming and falls to the floor in a seizure like maneuver that reminded me a lot of some of the scenes with Bruce Campbell in Evil Dead. The explanation was that he was blocking himself off from the house since he had been there before. As a physical medium, he was basically putting up walls to defend himself from the house this time around. And in this scene, I guess he tried lowering his guard for a bit and...this happened. The speeches he gives though, his facial expressions and body language, and cold tone. It's weird, but a guy that you look at at the beginning of the film and say to yourself that you're going to hate him because he looks smarmy and only really cares about himself winds up being the highlight of the film.
Another aspect of the film I really enjoyed were the special effects of the film. There's no CGI or anything, but the effects in the film are done very well. There's a scene where Ms. Tanner looks into her bedroom and sees someone lying under the covers in her bed and when she lifts up the covers, you can't see anyone but the door opens and slams like someone was getting up and leaving. It was just done very well. The effects like that were done very well. There are a few that look cheesy(cat in the shower scene, anyone?), but overall they look very good given how old the film is.
The plot was surprising, as well. I wasn't expecting anything really original or anything, but the fact that science is involved so heavily in trying rid the house of its supernatural presence was not only interesting, but a breath of fresh air compared to other methods I would've expected based on other films.
I think it's safe to say that The Legend of Hell House is one of the best haunted house films ever made and the best one I've seen as of this review. It probably isn't the type of horror film for gorehounds or if you're looking for a bloodfest. It's more of a paranormal film with a slight psychological twist. The acting is top notch and the story is a bit more clever than you may give it credit for at first glance.
The Legend of Hell House isn't your average horror film about paranormal activity. I'll be up front with you right now, I'm not a big fan of movies about ghosts. I'm just not. I've come across a few that were decent, but I didn't think they were anything special or I just wound up not liking them at all. I actually liked this a lot more than I thought I would. The film isn't heavy on blood, gore, or cheap scares. In fact, more often than not, the scares come from what you don't see rather than what you actually do.
The acting is definitely a strong point in the film. The entire cast has their moments of brilliance during the insanity Hell House is putting them through, but Roddy McDowall is the actor who stands out amonst the rest. His performance just seems to outshine everyone else and he steals just about every scene he's in. There's a scene in the film where he starts screaming and falls to the floor in a seizure like maneuver that reminded me a lot of some of the scenes with Bruce Campbell in Evil Dead. The explanation was that he was blocking himself off from the house since he had been there before. As a physical medium, he was basically putting up walls to defend himself from the house this time around. And in this scene, I guess he tried lowering his guard for a bit and...this happened. The speeches he gives though, his facial expressions and body language, and cold tone. It's weird, but a guy that you look at at the beginning of the film and say to yourself that you're going to hate him because he looks smarmy and only really cares about himself winds up being the highlight of the film.
Another aspect of the film I really enjoyed were the special effects of the film. There's no CGI or anything, but the effects in the film are done very well. There's a scene where Ms. Tanner looks into her bedroom and sees someone lying under the covers in her bed and when she lifts up the covers, you can't see anyone but the door opens and slams like someone was getting up and leaving. It was just done very well. The effects like that were done very well. There are a few that look cheesy(cat in the shower scene, anyone?), but overall they look very good given how old the film is.
The plot was surprising, as well. I wasn't expecting anything really original or anything, but the fact that science is involved so heavily in trying rid the house of its supernatural presence was not only interesting, but a breath of fresh air compared to other methods I would've expected based on other films.
I think it's safe to say that The Legend of Hell House is one of the best haunted house films ever made and the best one I've seen as of this review. It probably isn't the type of horror film for gorehounds or if you're looking for a bloodfest. It's more of a paranormal film with a slight psychological twist. The acting is top notch and the story is a bit more clever than you may give it credit for at first glance.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Fighting with My Family (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A biopic that’s not just for wrestling fans
Let me make something clear before I dive into my review: I don’t like wrestling. Actually, I hate wrestling. I could barely name another wrestler aside from The Rock and John Cena, so at a glance this film really isn’t marketed towards me. But when we go a little deeper, it becomes clear that this is an incredibly accessible film with a powerful message.
Fighting With My Family tells the story of Norwich-born Saraya “Paige” Bevis. Brought up in a family of wrestlers, Bevis spent her life wrestling alongside her parents, brother and the local community, drawing in small crowds on a regular basis. The family has dreams of making WWE and becoming professional wrestlers, even going as far as sending audition tapes to the company. When Saraya and her brother Zak “Zodiac” are called for an official audition, the family’s lives change for better and for worse.
With an all-star cast including The Rock (obviously), Vince Vaughn, Nick Frost, Lena Headey and Florence Pugh, it’s an incredibly appealing film. Everyone involved takes to their roles effortlessly, bringing all the charm and quirks of the characters to life. It’s so easy to like the Knight family, as they come across as a strange yet passionate family who’d do everything in their power to support the community around them. It’s refreshing to see a depiction of working-class life that doesn’t make the audience sneer or judge. I found myself rooting for the Knights all the way, and wishing them all the best. Pugh embodies Paige so well, to the point where it was easy to believe you were watching the woman herself. She’s so awkward, British and hugely likeable throughout.
I was also surprised to learn that Stephen Merchant (yes, that Stephen Merchant) was at the helm of this film. I adored his direction style and hilarious cameo, making this an unlikely project that worked like a charm. Based off the documentary of the same name, Merchant brings his own unique vision to the project, with the legendary Dwayne Johnson helping out as an an executive producer. It feels like an unlikely duo, but it seriously works.
Fighting With My Family has classic British humour and a familiar grittiness to it, reminding me why I adore British cinema so much. There are clear tonal shifts between the UK and US, emphasising the cultural differences and how out of her depth Bevis felt at first. This is where a lot of the humour comes into play too, as a pale, pierced Norwich girl sticks out like a sore thumb amongst blonde, bronzed models. As Saraya steps into the world of WWE with the ring name “Paige”, she has to face numerous obstacles that are both mentally and physically challenging. As it happens, her identity is one of them, and she soon becomes an outcast.
Yes, this film is about one girl’s rise to the top of the WWE ranks, but it’s also so much more than that. It’s about family, class divide, jealousy, among others. I particularly enjoyed the dynamic between Saraya and Zak, as there’s a clear case of sibling rivalry here. Whilst Saraya succeeds, Zak is dealing with a whole host of personal issues whilst wallowing in his own sadness. This is jealousy on a massive scale, causing a rift between the siblings, and in turn, the rest of the family.
I loved the overall message that the film delivers: that it’s important to always be true to yourself, and do what makes you great. Whether that’s big or small, you can make an impact. This is something that Zak eventually learns whilst he’s feeling jealous of his sister’s success. The familial bond is so strong in this film, and it’s a truly beautiful thing to witness. They might be slightly bonkers, dysfunctional and off the wall, but they’d do anything to support each other. Isn’t that wonderful?
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/21/a-biopic-thats-not-just-for-wrestling-fans-my-thoughts-on-fighting-with-my-family/
Fighting With My Family tells the story of Norwich-born Saraya “Paige” Bevis. Brought up in a family of wrestlers, Bevis spent her life wrestling alongside her parents, brother and the local community, drawing in small crowds on a regular basis. The family has dreams of making WWE and becoming professional wrestlers, even going as far as sending audition tapes to the company. When Saraya and her brother Zak “Zodiac” are called for an official audition, the family’s lives change for better and for worse.
With an all-star cast including The Rock (obviously), Vince Vaughn, Nick Frost, Lena Headey and Florence Pugh, it’s an incredibly appealing film. Everyone involved takes to their roles effortlessly, bringing all the charm and quirks of the characters to life. It’s so easy to like the Knight family, as they come across as a strange yet passionate family who’d do everything in their power to support the community around them. It’s refreshing to see a depiction of working-class life that doesn’t make the audience sneer or judge. I found myself rooting for the Knights all the way, and wishing them all the best. Pugh embodies Paige so well, to the point where it was easy to believe you were watching the woman herself. She’s so awkward, British and hugely likeable throughout.
I was also surprised to learn that Stephen Merchant (yes, that Stephen Merchant) was at the helm of this film. I adored his direction style and hilarious cameo, making this an unlikely project that worked like a charm. Based off the documentary of the same name, Merchant brings his own unique vision to the project, with the legendary Dwayne Johnson helping out as an an executive producer. It feels like an unlikely duo, but it seriously works.
Fighting With My Family has classic British humour and a familiar grittiness to it, reminding me why I adore British cinema so much. There are clear tonal shifts between the UK and US, emphasising the cultural differences and how out of her depth Bevis felt at first. This is where a lot of the humour comes into play too, as a pale, pierced Norwich girl sticks out like a sore thumb amongst blonde, bronzed models. As Saraya steps into the world of WWE with the ring name “Paige”, she has to face numerous obstacles that are both mentally and physically challenging. As it happens, her identity is one of them, and she soon becomes an outcast.
Yes, this film is about one girl’s rise to the top of the WWE ranks, but it’s also so much more than that. It’s about family, class divide, jealousy, among others. I particularly enjoyed the dynamic between Saraya and Zak, as there’s a clear case of sibling rivalry here. Whilst Saraya succeeds, Zak is dealing with a whole host of personal issues whilst wallowing in his own sadness. This is jealousy on a massive scale, causing a rift between the siblings, and in turn, the rest of the family.
I loved the overall message that the film delivers: that it’s important to always be true to yourself, and do what makes you great. Whether that’s big or small, you can make an impact. This is something that Zak eventually learns whilst he’s feeling jealous of his sister’s success. The familial bond is so strong in this film, and it’s a truly beautiful thing to witness. They might be slightly bonkers, dysfunctional and off the wall, but they’d do anything to support each other. Isn’t that wonderful?
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/21/a-biopic-thats-not-just-for-wrestling-fans-my-thoughts-on-fighting-with-my-family/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Care and Management of Lies in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
British author Jacqueline Winspear states in the letter from the author at the front of the book that the idea for this novel came from a second hand copy of a book titled <i>The Woman’s Book</i> by Florence B Jack (1911) containing an inscription revealing that it was presented as a gift to a woman on her wedding day in July 1914. The story within </i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is Winspear’s imaginings about who that woman was and what her life was like.
The book focuses primarily on four characters, the main being Kezia Brissenden née Marchant who receives the gift <i>The Woman’s Book</i> from a close friend, Dorothy “Thea”, who so happens to be the older sister of her new husband, Tom. The book was not a particularly kind gift as it emphasized Kezia’s upbringing and who, due to her father being a reverend and employer of maids and cooks, had never produced her own meal in her life nor had any experience with running a household, let alone a farm – her new home.
Whilst Kezia determinedly throws herself into her new role, showing her love for Tom through the food she learns to cook, Thea, living in London, is drifting away from their friendship. With the possibility of war on the horizon, Thea joins a pacifist movement, which is somewhat ironic as she was once involved with the suffragettes. On the other hand, once war is declared, Tom decides to enlist in the army as does neighbour, Edmund Hawkes, a man who is rather envious of Tom and his lovely wife. The reader receives two different perspectives of the terrors of war from these characters, but then also another, surprisingly, from Thea who rejects pacifism and goes out to France to help in anyway she can. This leaves Kezia at home alone with the effects the war has on Britain.
The love between Kezia and Tom is emphasized through the letters they send each other. Both are lying about their situations by trying to convince the other that they are better off than they really are. The thing that keeps them both going are Kezia’s descriptions of her fictional meals that she prepares for Tom’s dinner, describing in great detail the preparation and taste of the food.
Each chapter begins with a quote from <i>The Woman’s Book</i> (and later <i>Infantry Training</i> and <i>Field Service Pocket Book</i>) that relate to the particular events occurring in the story at that time. This is a great way of underlining the significance of that wedding present to the storyline.
The narrative quickly changes from character to character which, although helping to keep the pace of the novel, can sometimes be a little confusing. It also made it difficult to get into the story at the beginning. Sometimes it took a lot of concentration to follow the text and those with minds that easily wander may constantly find themselves suddenly reading from a different point of view without having noticed the change over.
Winspear’s grandfather was a soldier in the trenches during the Great War and so it seems likely that some of the scenes may be based on his experiences. If that is the case then it can be believed that <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is as accurate as can be in terms of the war and life on the front lines. Winspear also does not attempt to gloss over any of the war horrors, therefore does not create the unlikely “and they all lived happily ever after” ending that other writers of war stories have done in the past.
Those interested in war themes may be particularly interested in this book, especially as this year (2014) is the anniversary of the Great War. <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is a piece of literature to add to the mountain of media coverage of the commemoration of the war.
British author Jacqueline Winspear states in the letter from the author at the front of the book that the idea for this novel came from a second hand copy of a book titled <i>The Woman’s Book</i> by Florence B Jack (1911) containing an inscription revealing that it was presented as a gift to a woman on her wedding day in July 1914. The story within </i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is Winspear’s imaginings about who that woman was and what her life was like.
The book focuses primarily on four characters, the main being Kezia Brissenden née Marchant who receives the gift <i>The Woman’s Book</i> from a close friend, Dorothy “Thea”, who so happens to be the older sister of her new husband, Tom. The book was not a particularly kind gift as it emphasized Kezia’s upbringing and who, due to her father being a reverend and employer of maids and cooks, had never produced her own meal in her life nor had any experience with running a household, let alone a farm – her new home.
Whilst Kezia determinedly throws herself into her new role, showing her love for Tom through the food she learns to cook, Thea, living in London, is drifting away from their friendship. With the possibility of war on the horizon, Thea joins a pacifist movement, which is somewhat ironic as she was once involved with the suffragettes. On the other hand, once war is declared, Tom decides to enlist in the army as does neighbour, Edmund Hawkes, a man who is rather envious of Tom and his lovely wife. The reader receives two different perspectives of the terrors of war from these characters, but then also another, surprisingly, from Thea who rejects pacifism and goes out to France to help in anyway she can. This leaves Kezia at home alone with the effects the war has on Britain.
The love between Kezia and Tom is emphasized through the letters they send each other. Both are lying about their situations by trying to convince the other that they are better off than they really are. The thing that keeps them both going are Kezia’s descriptions of her fictional meals that she prepares for Tom’s dinner, describing in great detail the preparation and taste of the food.
Each chapter begins with a quote from <i>The Woman’s Book</i> (and later <i>Infantry Training</i> and <i>Field Service Pocket Book</i>) that relate to the particular events occurring in the story at that time. This is a great way of underlining the significance of that wedding present to the storyline.
The narrative quickly changes from character to character which, although helping to keep the pace of the novel, can sometimes be a little confusing. It also made it difficult to get into the story at the beginning. Sometimes it took a lot of concentration to follow the text and those with minds that easily wander may constantly find themselves suddenly reading from a different point of view without having noticed the change over.
Winspear’s grandfather was a soldier in the trenches during the Great War and so it seems likely that some of the scenes may be based on his experiences. If that is the case then it can be believed that <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is as accurate as can be in terms of the war and life on the front lines. Winspear also does not attempt to gloss over any of the war horrors, therefore does not create the unlikely “and they all lived happily ever after” ending that other writers of war stories have done in the past.
Those interested in war themes may be particularly interested in this book, especially as this year (2014) is the anniversary of the Great War. <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is a piece of literature to add to the mountain of media coverage of the commemoration of the war.