Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Rachel McAdams and Dan Stevens steal most of the scenes (1 more)
A real feelgood movie that spoofs the unspoofable pretty well
My lovely farce
Will Ferrell's output over the last few years has been decidedly patchy. I have to go back to "Get Hard" to find one of his movies that really got to my funny bone. But this latest Netflix offering hits the spot for me.
We start with the song recently voted the number one Eurovision song of all time by UK viewers: "Waterloo" by Abba. Young Lars Erickssong (LOL) (Alfie Melia) is transfixed watching the 1974 Eurovision winner with his recently bereaved father and local Lothario Erick (Pierce Brosnan). (Mental note to women: never marry Brosnan on screen... he gets through wives faster than you can murder "S.O.S."). Also present are his friends and young Sigrit ("probably not by sister") Ericksdottir (Sophia-Grace Donnelly). Lars vows to one day stand on that stage and make his father and his remote Icelandic fishing village proud.
Now all grown up, Lars (now Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (now Rachel McAdams) are still pursuing their dream of representing Iceland in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. They are, of course, dreadful - - so they should fit right in! But their way is blocked by the immensely talented Katiana (Demi Lovato) and all seems hopeless. Will Sigrit's faith in the power of the Elves see them through?
There's an obvious problem here. The Eurovision Song Contest is in itself so bat-s**t bonkers that it is almost impossible to spoof. (If anyone is not on this wavelength, checkout the genuine Russian entry in this year's (cancelled) contest on Youtube). But the team here (writers Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele and director David "The Judge" Dobkin) do a really great job. I'd love to know what a US audience - who I guess will mostly be unfamiliar with Eurovision - make of this. Since Australia are now honorary Europeans in the contest.... wouldn't it be great if there was a Mexican mariachi band attending and a country and western act from the States? (Brits would love the US to be involved.... as spoofed in the film, there's only one country European's hate more than the UK.... be nice to have someone else to join us in the "nul points" club!)
Wherever you may be on the "Ferrell-funny-or-not-ometer", there's one thing I hope we can all agree on here, and that is that Rachel McAdams continues to shine as a comic lead. She was fantastic in "Game Night" - one of my favourite comedies of recent years - and here she is both gorgeous and hilarious. She knocks it out of the park playing the elf-loving Icelandic pixie with the golden voice. (McAdams "sings" but is significantly "helped" in the mix by Swedish pop star Molly Sandén (aka My Marianne)).
Here she even gets to almost reprise her wonderful "YEESSSSS! Oh no, he died!" line from "Game Night".
Almost matching her in the scene-stealing stakes though is Downton's Dan Stevens as Lemtov: a Russian 'Tom Jones'-like contestant singing "Lion of Love" ("Let's get together; I'm a lion lover; And I hunt for love!"). He's DEFINITELY not gay ("There are no gays in Russia") but are his multi-millions enough to turn Sigrit's head?
For those who love their annual Eurovision parties, there are also an impressive array of nice cameos that will delight.
But where the film-makers really score (no pun intended) is making the music so fitting. Some of the tracks make you think "Yeah, if this was the real content, this might have got my vote". Director Dobkin is quoted as saying "It's okay if it's funny, but it has to be really good music. It has to still be great and just kitschy enough to be Eurovision, because that's part of what's fun about Eurovision" (Source: Vulture). Very true. This success is down to the involvement of pop writer/producer Savan Kotecha on the project: the man behind hits by Katy Petty, Ariana Grande and Ellie Goulding.
A comedy needs to make me laugh, and this one really did - numerous times. It's not just the dialogue. Some of the cut-away scenes are priceless and perfectly executed: jumping whales; a collapsing glacier; a small slamming door!
Sure, it borrows from a number of other sources in its plot: most notably THAT episode of "Father Ted" and the rap-battle scenes from "Pitch Perfect". And sure, some of the outRAGEOUS Icelandic accents sometimes swerve into an alarming mix of Indian, Welsh and Caribbean dialects! But above all, this is movie with real heart. The plot is pretty well signposted, but the finale still packs a (surprisingly) hefty emotional punch, and it leaves you with a really nice afterglow.
As we struggle out of Covid lockdown, it may not be a vaccine, but it is a pretty good medicine for the side-effects. Did I love this? Jaja Ding Dong!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-eurovision-song-contest-the-story-of-fire-saga-2020/ ).
We start with the song recently voted the number one Eurovision song of all time by UK viewers: "Waterloo" by Abba. Young Lars Erickssong (LOL) (Alfie Melia) is transfixed watching the 1974 Eurovision winner with his recently bereaved father and local Lothario Erick (Pierce Brosnan). (Mental note to women: never marry Brosnan on screen... he gets through wives faster than you can murder "S.O.S."). Also present are his friends and young Sigrit ("probably not by sister") Ericksdottir (Sophia-Grace Donnelly). Lars vows to one day stand on that stage and make his father and his remote Icelandic fishing village proud.
Now all grown up, Lars (now Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (now Rachel McAdams) are still pursuing their dream of representing Iceland in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. They are, of course, dreadful - - so they should fit right in! But their way is blocked by the immensely talented Katiana (Demi Lovato) and all seems hopeless. Will Sigrit's faith in the power of the Elves see them through?
There's an obvious problem here. The Eurovision Song Contest is in itself so bat-s**t bonkers that it is almost impossible to spoof. (If anyone is not on this wavelength, checkout the genuine Russian entry in this year's (cancelled) contest on Youtube). But the team here (writers Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele and director David "The Judge" Dobkin) do a really great job. I'd love to know what a US audience - who I guess will mostly be unfamiliar with Eurovision - make of this. Since Australia are now honorary Europeans in the contest.... wouldn't it be great if there was a Mexican mariachi band attending and a country and western act from the States? (Brits would love the US to be involved.... as spoofed in the film, there's only one country European's hate more than the UK.... be nice to have someone else to join us in the "nul points" club!)
Wherever you may be on the "Ferrell-funny-or-not-ometer", there's one thing I hope we can all agree on here, and that is that Rachel McAdams continues to shine as a comic lead. She was fantastic in "Game Night" - one of my favourite comedies of recent years - and here she is both gorgeous and hilarious. She knocks it out of the park playing the elf-loving Icelandic pixie with the golden voice. (McAdams "sings" but is significantly "helped" in the mix by Swedish pop star Molly Sandén (aka My Marianne)).
Here she even gets to almost reprise her wonderful "YEESSSSS! Oh no, he died!" line from "Game Night".
Almost matching her in the scene-stealing stakes though is Downton's Dan Stevens as Lemtov: a Russian 'Tom Jones'-like contestant singing "Lion of Love" ("Let's get together; I'm a lion lover; And I hunt for love!"). He's DEFINITELY not gay ("There are no gays in Russia") but are his multi-millions enough to turn Sigrit's head?
For those who love their annual Eurovision parties, there are also an impressive array of nice cameos that will delight.
But where the film-makers really score (no pun intended) is making the music so fitting. Some of the tracks make you think "Yeah, if this was the real content, this might have got my vote". Director Dobkin is quoted as saying "It's okay if it's funny, but it has to be really good music. It has to still be great and just kitschy enough to be Eurovision, because that's part of what's fun about Eurovision" (Source: Vulture). Very true. This success is down to the involvement of pop writer/producer Savan Kotecha on the project: the man behind hits by Katy Petty, Ariana Grande and Ellie Goulding.
A comedy needs to make me laugh, and this one really did - numerous times. It's not just the dialogue. Some of the cut-away scenes are priceless and perfectly executed: jumping whales; a collapsing glacier; a small slamming door!
Sure, it borrows from a number of other sources in its plot: most notably THAT episode of "Father Ted" and the rap-battle scenes from "Pitch Perfect". And sure, some of the outRAGEOUS Icelandic accents sometimes swerve into an alarming mix of Indian, Welsh and Caribbean dialects! But above all, this is movie with real heart. The plot is pretty well signposted, but the finale still packs a (surprisingly) hefty emotional punch, and it leaves you with a really nice afterglow.
As we struggle out of Covid lockdown, it may not be a vaccine, but it is a pretty good medicine for the side-effects. Did I love this? Jaja Ding Dong!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-eurovision-song-contest-the-story-of-fire-saga-2020/ ).
I tried to avoid much about this before seeing it and despite the internet being what it is I somehow managed to avoid spoilers.
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Small Great Things in Books
May 24, 2017
Small is an Understatement
Jodi Picoult has been my favourite author since I first came across her novels in 2008. With twenty-three novels under her belt, she continues to delight readers with her page-turning stories. Most of Picoult’s books contain a moral issue, often, but not always, in the form of medical ethics, as well as a hefty court case. Although following along similar lines, Small Great Things is a radical, revolutionary book, which, with great courage, Picoult has written with the intent to expose the reader to truths that most of us, as a society, are intentionally oblivious to.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate Small Great Things. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. Small Great Things provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, Small Great Things has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
Small Great Things will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However Small Great Things makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate Small Great Things. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. Small Great Things provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, Small Great Things has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
Small Great Things will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However Small Great Things makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Small Great Things in Books
Dec 7, 2018
Jodi Picoult has been my favourite author since I first came across her novels in 2008. With twenty-three novels under her belt, she continues to delight readers with her page-turning stories. Most of Picoult’s books contain a moral issue, often, but not always, in the form of medical ethics, as well as a hefty court case. Although following along similar lines, <i>Small Great Thing</i>s is a radical, revolutionary book, which, with great courage, Picoult has written with the intent to expose the reader to truths that most of us, as a society, are <s>intentionally</s> oblivious to.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate<i> Small Great Things</i>. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. <i>Small Great Things</i> provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, <i>Small Great Things</i> has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in <i>To Kill A Mockingbird</i> to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
<i>Small Great Things</i> will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However <i>Small Great Things </i>makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate<i> Small Great Things</i>. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. <i>Small Great Things</i> provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, <i>Small Great Things</i> has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in <i>To Kill A Mockingbird</i> to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
<i>Small Great Things</i> will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However <i>Small Great Things </i>makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Poseidon (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The summer movie season has arrived in grand style with the first thrill ride of the season In Poseidon, viewers are taking to the very edge and beyond in one of the better adventure films in recent memory.
Based on the 1972 original, the film once again follows a ship in peril and a group of survivors attempting to save themselves from certain doom. Onboard the Poseidon, the guests are a mixed bag of society, but fate is about to bring them all together when their transatlantic crossing hits a rather unexpected snag in the form of a massive tidal wave which capsizes the boat leaving the survivors to deal with an upside down ship and the constant threat of drowning.
Wasting little time on character backgrounds and motivations, the film gets right to the action as within 10 minutes, the action is underway, and rarely lets up over the roughly 99 minutes of the films run time.
After the disaster has hit and the survivors survey the carnage caused by the wave, Robert Ramsey (Kurt Russell), decides to ignore the advice of the ships captain and follow a maverick named Dylan (Josh Lucas), out of the ballroom in an effort not only to find his daughter, but a way out of the ship. Joining the duo are a young mother named Maggie (Jacinda Barrett), and her son, as well as business man Richard Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss). As the group ventures to find a way out, they do in time meet up with Roberts’s daughter and her finance as well as a few other survivors.
As the group is forced to work with one another for survival, conflicts arise as Dylan and Robert clash over the best course of action. It is learned that Robert was a former fireman who after a heroic act was able to become Mayor of New York, but for reasons unknown was not able to deal with his success which had caused his wife to leave him. Now Michael spends his days in luxury being an overprotective father to his daughter Jennifer (Emmy Rossum).
While much of Michael’s past is uncovered in a few lines tossed at him in a moment of anger, even less is known about Dylan. Prior to the accident, he revealed to Maggie that he takes money from people who like to get into arguments and play cards. Only Richard Nelsons character is given a bit more background as we learn that he is a Gay business man whose lover has left him for another in London, leaving Richard alone, and suicidal. The fact that Richard is preparing to jump overboard and is stopped only by the site of the closing wave allows his character to show some diversity as in the face of disaster, he finds new meaning and purpose.
The remainder of the film is packed with narrow escapes, danger, death, and the ever constant menace of the water which like an unrelenting killer is never far away from the group and stalks them without mercy at every turn.
While some of the situations are beyond reason, the film has some impressive sets and visuals, and Director Wolfgang Peterson keeps the pacing of the film fresh as it never stops long enough to loose its momentum.
The leads do the best they can with their stock characters, yet this is compensated for by the thrills of the film and the physicality of the rolls. Josh Lucas reportedly broke his arm while filming the movie underscoring just how much the actors put themselves into the film.
While Poseidon is not likely to be a cinematic classic, it is an enjoyable if flawed summer film that provides enough thrills to keep you entertained.
Based on the 1972 original, the film once again follows a ship in peril and a group of survivors attempting to save themselves from certain doom. Onboard the Poseidon, the guests are a mixed bag of society, but fate is about to bring them all together when their transatlantic crossing hits a rather unexpected snag in the form of a massive tidal wave which capsizes the boat leaving the survivors to deal with an upside down ship and the constant threat of drowning.
Wasting little time on character backgrounds and motivations, the film gets right to the action as within 10 minutes, the action is underway, and rarely lets up over the roughly 99 minutes of the films run time.
After the disaster has hit and the survivors survey the carnage caused by the wave, Robert Ramsey (Kurt Russell), decides to ignore the advice of the ships captain and follow a maverick named Dylan (Josh Lucas), out of the ballroom in an effort not only to find his daughter, but a way out of the ship. Joining the duo are a young mother named Maggie (Jacinda Barrett), and her son, as well as business man Richard Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss). As the group ventures to find a way out, they do in time meet up with Roberts’s daughter and her finance as well as a few other survivors.
As the group is forced to work with one another for survival, conflicts arise as Dylan and Robert clash over the best course of action. It is learned that Robert was a former fireman who after a heroic act was able to become Mayor of New York, but for reasons unknown was not able to deal with his success which had caused his wife to leave him. Now Michael spends his days in luxury being an overprotective father to his daughter Jennifer (Emmy Rossum).
While much of Michael’s past is uncovered in a few lines tossed at him in a moment of anger, even less is known about Dylan. Prior to the accident, he revealed to Maggie that he takes money from people who like to get into arguments and play cards. Only Richard Nelsons character is given a bit more background as we learn that he is a Gay business man whose lover has left him for another in London, leaving Richard alone, and suicidal. The fact that Richard is preparing to jump overboard and is stopped only by the site of the closing wave allows his character to show some diversity as in the face of disaster, he finds new meaning and purpose.
The remainder of the film is packed with narrow escapes, danger, death, and the ever constant menace of the water which like an unrelenting killer is never far away from the group and stalks them without mercy at every turn.
While some of the situations are beyond reason, the film has some impressive sets and visuals, and Director Wolfgang Peterson keeps the pacing of the film fresh as it never stops long enough to loose its momentum.
The leads do the best they can with their stock characters, yet this is compensated for by the thrills of the film and the physicality of the rolls. Josh Lucas reportedly broke his arm while filming the movie underscoring just how much the actors put themselves into the film.
While Poseidon is not likely to be a cinematic classic, it is an enjoyable if flawed summer film that provides enough thrills to keep you entertained.
Jamie (131 KP) rated Men Explain Things to Me: And Other Essays in Books
Jul 26, 2017
Poorly written (2 more)
Not intersectional
Lack of sources in the physical version
Mediocre essays, I wish I could've liked this more
Disappointment and shallow is probably the most apt descriptions I can think of when describing this book which is really sad because I usually enjoy feminist essays.
The titular essay, Men Explain Things to Me, discusses the author’s experiences with men explaining things with the assumption that she couldn’t possibly know due to her gender. While I was nodding my head that yes, I have experienced this as well, there was not much else. There was little to no research into the history of why this might be or any additional insight into the topic which was really a let down, I didn’t feel like I got much out of it. I should have known that the rest of the essays in this collection would be the same but I was optimistic.
One of the better essays was In Praise of the Threat: What Marriage Equality Really Means which discussed how the fight for marriage equality, or same-sex marriage, has been redefining the traditional gendered views of marriage and I thought that this was really great. However in a later essay Solnit goes on to claim that gay marriage would never have been possible if it weren’t for feminists redefining marriage as a union between equals, which is a statement I found both bold and mildly insulting.
I also need to address a specific statement that became the basis the essay, The Longest War, which was the following:
“Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion,
or a nationality, but it does have a gender.”
It is very apparent that Solnit doesn’t know a thing about intersectionality because any minority can tell you that the statement above is laughably false. Is it true, statistically, that more reported violent crimes are perpetrated by men? Yes. Do people in many societies have an issue with toxic masculinity? Yes. Does this mean, then, that violence has a gender, that it is purely a male problem? No. To say that it doesn’t have a specific race, class, religion, or nationality despite evidence to the contrary throughout history is naïve.
Solnit continues on to rant about how men are the almost exclusive source of violence and assault and how everyone should acknowledge this so we can go about finding solutions. She doesn’t go into much more depth than that or offer up much in the way of solutions herself. A large portion of the essay is just her fluffing up the piece with a literal list of vague examples which might not mean much to folks less knowledgeable about violent crimes. There are also quite a few statistics thrown in with absolutely no sources to back up the claims.
Not that I doubt the information provided, but in times where people cherry pick the news to fit their own narrative books like this become questionable. After flipping through the back of the book I eventually found a note in the acknowledgements section that Solnit chose to edit out her sources for the book version, but that they could be found on the online versions of her essays. It’s careless and lazy for an author that wants to be taken seriously.
Solnit also postulates at several points that because she has published several books that she is an authority and I found that sort of attitude to be self defeating. She talks about another author that she argued with about Virginia Woolfe and claims that she had “won” which just makes the author sound childish, and I wondered what the point of the essay was to begin with. It felt out of place for the rest of the collection and any connections she attempted to make were shaky at best.
I think that Solnit had some good ideas but the execution was extremely poor. Because she spends so much time listing examples and being over dramatic in her descriptions the actual point of discussion in her essays becomes muddled and unclear. There are far better essays out there that address the exact same topics. Men Explain Things to Me just wasn’t worth the time.
The titular essay, Men Explain Things to Me, discusses the author’s experiences with men explaining things with the assumption that she couldn’t possibly know due to her gender. While I was nodding my head that yes, I have experienced this as well, there was not much else. There was little to no research into the history of why this might be or any additional insight into the topic which was really a let down, I didn’t feel like I got much out of it. I should have known that the rest of the essays in this collection would be the same but I was optimistic.
One of the better essays was In Praise of the Threat: What Marriage Equality Really Means which discussed how the fight for marriage equality, or same-sex marriage, has been redefining the traditional gendered views of marriage and I thought that this was really great. However in a later essay Solnit goes on to claim that gay marriage would never have been possible if it weren’t for feminists redefining marriage as a union between equals, which is a statement I found both bold and mildly insulting.
I also need to address a specific statement that became the basis the essay, The Longest War, which was the following:
“Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion,
or a nationality, but it does have a gender.”
It is very apparent that Solnit doesn’t know a thing about intersectionality because any minority can tell you that the statement above is laughably false. Is it true, statistically, that more reported violent crimes are perpetrated by men? Yes. Do people in many societies have an issue with toxic masculinity? Yes. Does this mean, then, that violence has a gender, that it is purely a male problem? No. To say that it doesn’t have a specific race, class, religion, or nationality despite evidence to the contrary throughout history is naïve.
Solnit continues on to rant about how men are the almost exclusive source of violence and assault and how everyone should acknowledge this so we can go about finding solutions. She doesn’t go into much more depth than that or offer up much in the way of solutions herself. A large portion of the essay is just her fluffing up the piece with a literal list of vague examples which might not mean much to folks less knowledgeable about violent crimes. There are also quite a few statistics thrown in with absolutely no sources to back up the claims.
Not that I doubt the information provided, but in times where people cherry pick the news to fit their own narrative books like this become questionable. After flipping through the back of the book I eventually found a note in the acknowledgements section that Solnit chose to edit out her sources for the book version, but that they could be found on the online versions of her essays. It’s careless and lazy for an author that wants to be taken seriously.
Solnit also postulates at several points that because she has published several books that she is an authority and I found that sort of attitude to be self defeating. She talks about another author that she argued with about Virginia Woolfe and claims that she had “won” which just makes the author sound childish, and I wondered what the point of the essay was to begin with. It felt out of place for the rest of the collection and any connections she attempted to make were shaky at best.
I think that Solnit had some good ideas but the execution was extremely poor. Because she spends so much time listing examples and being over dramatic in her descriptions the actual point of discussion in her essays becomes muddled and unclear. There are far better essays out there that address the exact same topics. Men Explain Things to Me just wasn’t worth the time.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Mist (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1987, I picked up a copy of the new Stephen King novel, Skeleton Crew, a collection of short stories that were amongst the best short stories the author has ever written. The first story in the collection was a novella entitled The Mist and I was captivated by the engrossing stories, characters, and supernatural situations depicted.
As I moved on to other books and films, I never forgot the impact of the story, and for years wondered why nobody had attempted to bring the story to the screen. A few years later, I heard rumblings of an attempt to make a film version of the story with Michael J. Fox being listed as the intended lead.
While this never came to be, Frank Darabont who masterfully adapted King’s “The Green Mile” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, into solid films, took up the task of writing and directing “The Mist” and has done a solid job of translating the master story for the screen.
The film stars Thomas Jane as David Drayton, a movie poster artist who lives in a quiet Maine town in a nice house overlooking the water with his wife and son Billy (Nathan Gamble). The morning after a freak storm lays waste to the surrounding area, Frank and Billy set out for the store with their estranged neighbor Brent Norton (Andre Braugher).
When they arrive at the store, they find it packed with people who are trying to stock up on supplies following the storm. With the power, phones, and cell service being out, and military forces being deployed all around them, the town is in a state of chaos.
A man marked with blood suddenly emerges from an expanding mist that has formed over the town and claims that something in this mist has taken his friend. This event is punctuated with a warning siren that has started to sound, which leads the people in the store to lock the doors and seek shelter in the store.
Frank attempts to tell the people that there was something scraping against the back loading door, but his concerns are ignored with tragic results. Since this event was witnessed by only a small group of people, the residents trapped in the store quickly give in to their fears and star to accuse Frank of fabricating the situation, and locale crackpot Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), and blames their situation on Judgment Day and starts to convert people to her radical beliefs.
Things get even worse when creatures from the mist get into the store and attack the people which forces Frank and company to take a risky trip to the neighboring drug store in an attempt to gain much needed medical supplies.
In short order the situation gets even worse as Frank and his supporters are faced to contend not only with the creatures in the mist, but the growing threat from Mrs. Carmody and her fanatics who have adapted a mob mentality towards anyone they think is a non-believer.
What follows is a thrilling series of events that leads to one of the most shocking and memorable finale acts that will stay with you long after the film has ended.
There has been much made of the decision to add a proper ending to the story instead of the nebulous ending in the story where nothing was truly resolved. I think this decision was wise, as being a fan of the story; I was a bit frustrated that there was not final outcome in the story and I was left with more questions than answers when the story ended.
Darabont has crafted a finale that is sure to upset some people and please others, but credit has to be given for crafting an ending that does not take the standard Hollywood outs.
The cast is strong, and the FX and Gore are restrained to the point that they do not overshadow what is essentially a drama about people in an extra-ordinary situation, and what happens when the rules and creature comforts of society collapse.
While the film will not break new ground in the horror genre, it is one of the best adaptation of a King story, and is very entertaining.
As I moved on to other books and films, I never forgot the impact of the story, and for years wondered why nobody had attempted to bring the story to the screen. A few years later, I heard rumblings of an attempt to make a film version of the story with Michael J. Fox being listed as the intended lead.
While this never came to be, Frank Darabont who masterfully adapted King’s “The Green Mile” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, into solid films, took up the task of writing and directing “The Mist” and has done a solid job of translating the master story for the screen.
The film stars Thomas Jane as David Drayton, a movie poster artist who lives in a quiet Maine town in a nice house overlooking the water with his wife and son Billy (Nathan Gamble). The morning after a freak storm lays waste to the surrounding area, Frank and Billy set out for the store with their estranged neighbor Brent Norton (Andre Braugher).
When they arrive at the store, they find it packed with people who are trying to stock up on supplies following the storm. With the power, phones, and cell service being out, and military forces being deployed all around them, the town is in a state of chaos.
A man marked with blood suddenly emerges from an expanding mist that has formed over the town and claims that something in this mist has taken his friend. This event is punctuated with a warning siren that has started to sound, which leads the people in the store to lock the doors and seek shelter in the store.
Frank attempts to tell the people that there was something scraping against the back loading door, but his concerns are ignored with tragic results. Since this event was witnessed by only a small group of people, the residents trapped in the store quickly give in to their fears and star to accuse Frank of fabricating the situation, and locale crackpot Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), and blames their situation on Judgment Day and starts to convert people to her radical beliefs.
Things get even worse when creatures from the mist get into the store and attack the people which forces Frank and company to take a risky trip to the neighboring drug store in an attempt to gain much needed medical supplies.
In short order the situation gets even worse as Frank and his supporters are faced to contend not only with the creatures in the mist, but the growing threat from Mrs. Carmody and her fanatics who have adapted a mob mentality towards anyone they think is a non-believer.
What follows is a thrilling series of events that leads to one of the most shocking and memorable finale acts that will stay with you long after the film has ended.
There has been much made of the decision to add a proper ending to the story instead of the nebulous ending in the story where nothing was truly resolved. I think this decision was wise, as being a fan of the story; I was a bit frustrated that there was not final outcome in the story and I was left with more questions than answers when the story ended.
Darabont has crafted a finale that is sure to upset some people and please others, but credit has to be given for crafting an ending that does not take the standard Hollywood outs.
The cast is strong, and the FX and Gore are restrained to the point that they do not overshadow what is essentially a drama about people in an extra-ordinary situation, and what happens when the rules and creature comforts of society collapse.
While the film will not break new ground in the horror genre, it is one of the best adaptation of a King story, and is very entertaining.
Debbiereadsbook (1441 KP) rated Homeward Bound (Pine Cove #3) in Books
Sep 29, 2019 (Updated Dec 6, 2019)
can't fault it!
I was gifted my copy of this book, that I write a review was not required.
Swift finds out he is a father, 5 years after Imogen’s birth. But Imogen’s mum is struggling and Swift takes custody of his daughter while mum sorts herself out. Micha is home, after some time in custody, and is struggling being at home. He loves his family, he really does, but they don’t know who he is, deep down, he can’t tell them, not after what he did before he left. Swift comes to Micha’s aid and vice versa. The things start to spiral out of control with Micha being in such close proximity to Imogen, when his past finds and threatens those he has come to love, and Micha makes a dreadful decision. Can Swift get to him in time?
Ms Welch has out done herself, AGAIN!
I mean, the whole previously undiscovered bisexuality genre is growing on me, big time, and it is almost entirely due to Ms Welch’s skill at writing these characters!
Swift is Robin’s (from book 1, Safe Harbor) older brother, and Swift is Micha’s older brother’s best friend. Micha makes no bones about his attraction to Swift, from when they all hung out together when he was a teenager. But Micha is a grown man now, and surely can’t still be crushing on Swift, right? Clearly, he is. And he struggles so much with that attraction with Swift’s little, entirely innocent, touches, because Micha doesn’t want them to be innocent. But Swift is straight, cos he has a child. And Micha just suffers in silence.
Swift, however, is questioning everything. His daughter just landed on his doorstep, and he has no idea what to do! Having Micha help is a godsend. Having Micha in his space is . .nice. Having Micha OUT his space, is not so nice and it’s not till Swift thinks he might lose Micha that he questions why he feels like that. And Swift is just like, Okay then! Micha is MINE and I want him back. And he goes all out!
When Micha tells Swift about why he can’t tell his family he is gay, I cried, I really did. It breaks your heart, the pain he has been carrying around all this time.
It’s a well told tale, of getting what and WHO you want, it really is!
But PULEEEEEZE, Ms Welch, write Ava and Peyton a full story!!
5 full and shiny stars!
Nick J Russo narrates this series.
And just as Ms Welch outdid herself WRITING this book, Russo outdid himself NARRATING it.
I mean, I rarely react out loud (verbally, shouitng, crying at what I'm reading) when I am READING. When I am LISTENING, however, its a totally different ball game and I don't think I was ever more verbal with this book than maybe one other, in years of being an audio book listener!
Right from the start, Russo broke my heart for Micha. Well Welch did of course, but HEARING how broken Micha feels he is? I think I was crying right at the first chapter!
But when Micha is telling Swift why they can't be together?? Oh dear Lord. I had to stop what I was doing and just listen to poor Micha pour his heart out to Swift and I sobbed my bloody socks off! So much so, my daughter came in to ask if I was okay!
But equally, Russo gets over Swift's emotions too. Not quite as dramatically and gut wrenching as Micha's but Swift goes through a lot here, and Russo gets all of that across.
The voices for the other characters are carried across the series perfectly, and most of them pop uo here are some point.
While I was listening, I made a connection to book 4 that I hadn't made when I was reading. Elias and Ben pop up here and it was great to figure out where they fit in into the Pine Cove bigger picture. I have their book to read next.
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Swift finds out he is a father, 5 years after Imogen’s birth. But Imogen’s mum is struggling and Swift takes custody of his daughter while mum sorts herself out. Micha is home, after some time in custody, and is struggling being at home. He loves his family, he really does, but they don’t know who he is, deep down, he can’t tell them, not after what he did before he left. Swift comes to Micha’s aid and vice versa. The things start to spiral out of control with Micha being in such close proximity to Imogen, when his past finds and threatens those he has come to love, and Micha makes a dreadful decision. Can Swift get to him in time?
Ms Welch has out done herself, AGAIN!
I mean, the whole previously undiscovered bisexuality genre is growing on me, big time, and it is almost entirely due to Ms Welch’s skill at writing these characters!
Swift is Robin’s (from book 1, Safe Harbor) older brother, and Swift is Micha’s older brother’s best friend. Micha makes no bones about his attraction to Swift, from when they all hung out together when he was a teenager. But Micha is a grown man now, and surely can’t still be crushing on Swift, right? Clearly, he is. And he struggles so much with that attraction with Swift’s little, entirely innocent, touches, because Micha doesn’t want them to be innocent. But Swift is straight, cos he has a child. And Micha just suffers in silence.
Swift, however, is questioning everything. His daughter just landed on his doorstep, and he has no idea what to do! Having Micha help is a godsend. Having Micha in his space is . .nice. Having Micha OUT his space, is not so nice and it’s not till Swift thinks he might lose Micha that he questions why he feels like that. And Swift is just like, Okay then! Micha is MINE and I want him back. And he goes all out!
When Micha tells Swift about why he can’t tell his family he is gay, I cried, I really did. It breaks your heart, the pain he has been carrying around all this time.
It’s a well told tale, of getting what and WHO you want, it really is!
But PULEEEEEZE, Ms Welch, write Ava and Peyton a full story!!
5 full and shiny stars!
Nick J Russo narrates this series.
And just as Ms Welch outdid herself WRITING this book, Russo outdid himself NARRATING it.
I mean, I rarely react out loud (verbally, shouitng, crying at what I'm reading) when I am READING. When I am LISTENING, however, its a totally different ball game and I don't think I was ever more verbal with this book than maybe one other, in years of being an audio book listener!
Right from the start, Russo broke my heart for Micha. Well Welch did of course, but HEARING how broken Micha feels he is? I think I was crying right at the first chapter!
But when Micha is telling Swift why they can't be together?? Oh dear Lord. I had to stop what I was doing and just listen to poor Micha pour his heart out to Swift and I sobbed my bloody socks off! So much so, my daughter came in to ask if I was okay!
But equally, Russo gets over Swift's emotions too. Not quite as dramatically and gut wrenching as Micha's but Swift goes through a lot here, and Russo gets all of that across.
The voices for the other characters are carried across the series perfectly, and most of them pop uo here are some point.
While I was listening, I made a connection to book 4 that I hadn't made when I was reading. Elias and Ben pop up here and it was great to figure out where they fit in into the Pine Cove bigger picture. I have their book to read next.
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Song of Achilles in Books
Jul 19, 2018
I thought I would enjoy it more
Review can also be found on my blog - www.diaryofdifference.com
The Song Of Achilles became a part of my TBR list right after I finished reading Circe. I loved Circe and it is one of my favorite books of 2018. I also enjoyed The Song of Achilles, but not nearly as much.
For the ones out there who love greek mythology, this is a book that covers Achilles’s life told from Patroclus’s point of view. It is more or less accurate, and covers a lot of details from the early lives of these two princes. This is a story about one great friendship that turns into something more, a lot of challenges, a lot of doubts, and a lot of choices to be made during a time of war.
The story is very fast paced, and I was skipping through the pages as fast as Achilles was killing Trojan warriors. From their childhood, to their growing up, to their adventures and the war, this book will never keep you calm, because every chapter something unexpected happens. Well, sometimes not too much, as I know the story, but even still, I was surprised a lot.
A thing that bothered me a lot throughout the whole book was the inaccuracy at some points, and hiding information.
Now, we all know that Achilles was immortal. And we all know the story that his mother Thetis, a goddess of water dipped his body into the water in the river Styx. However, she was holding him by the heel, so his heel was the only place where he was vulnerable. This will be the reason of his death, when Apollo would direct Paris’s spear into Achilles’ heel.
Now - if this is such a common fact, and everybody who heard about Achilles knows it - why wouldn’t the author include it in the book. It wasn’t mentioned once.. Not once… I found this really upsetting.
Moving forward to the characters, we have Patroclus presented as the weaker one, the coward, the person that is mocked by everyone, not loved even by his parents and unworthy. ( Another point that bothered me is that this is not entirely true - according to Homer, Patroclus was apparently wiser than Achilles)
On the other hand, we have the opposite - a wise, brave, strong and handsome man, loved by everyone, immortal and a son of a goddess. We have a perfect example for a leader.
While fate connect these two to meet from their very early years, they also build a love relationship which they try to hide it at first. This relationship will cause them hatred from Thetis (Achilles’ mom) and will prompt them to make choices that might not be necessarily good ones. Now, Homer never mentioned a pederasty in his works between these two, but Miller does. And I am not sure how I feel about it. Not about the fact that they are gay, but the fact that this is Achilles.
All in all, I enjoyed this book. It is a great retelling of the story and a great time capture of the past. It wasn’t anything special, and I didn’t feel heartbroken in the end, but it was definitely worth reading it. I give it three stars - ★★★.
3 likes
The Song Of Achilles became a part of my TBR list right after I finished reading Circe. I loved Circe and it is one of my favorite books of 2018. I also enjoyed The Song of Achilles, but not nearly as much.
For the ones out there who love greek mythology, this is a book that covers Achilles’s life told from Patroclus’s point of view. It is more or less accurate, and covers a lot of details from the early lives of these two princes. This is a story about one great friendship that turns into something more, a lot of challenges, a lot of doubts, and a lot of choices to be made during a time of war.
The story is very fast paced, and I was skipping through the pages as fast as Achilles was killing Trojan warriors. From their childhood, to their growing up, to their adventures and the war, this book will never keep you calm, because every chapter something unexpected happens. Well, sometimes not too much, as I know the story, but even still, I was surprised a lot.
A thing that bothered me a lot throughout the whole book was the inaccuracy at some points, and hiding information.
Now, we all know that Achilles was immortal. And we all know the story that his mother Thetis, a goddess of water dipped his body into the water in the river Styx. However, she was holding him by the heel, so his heel was the only place where he was vulnerable. This will be the reason of his death, when Apollo would direct Paris’s spear into Achilles’ heel.
Now - if this is such a common fact, and everybody who heard about Achilles knows it - why wouldn’t the author include it in the book. It wasn’t mentioned once.. Not once… I found this really upsetting.
Moving forward to the characters, we have Patroclus presented as the weaker one, the coward, the person that is mocked by everyone, not loved even by his parents and unworthy. ( Another point that bothered me is that this is not entirely true - according to Homer, Patroclus was apparently wiser than Achilles)
On the other hand, we have the opposite - a wise, brave, strong and handsome man, loved by everyone, immortal and a son of a goddess. We have a perfect example for a leader.
While fate connect these two to meet from their very early years, they also build a love relationship which they try to hide it at first. This relationship will cause them hatred from Thetis (Achilles’ mom) and will prompt them to make choices that might not be necessarily good ones. Now, Homer never mentioned a pederasty in his works between these two, but Miller does. And I am not sure how I feel about it. Not about the fact that they are gay, but the fact that this is Achilles.
All in all, I enjoyed this book. It is a great retelling of the story and a great time capture of the past. It wasn’t anything special, and I didn’t feel heartbroken in the end, but it was definitely worth reading it. I give it three stars - ★★★.
3 likes
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Song of Achilles in Books
Aug 21, 2018
<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>;
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/book-review1.png"/>;
The Song Of Achilles became a part of my TBR list right after I finished reading Circe. I loved Circe and it is one of my favorite books of 2018. I also enjoyed The Song of Achilles, but not nearly as much.
For the ones out there who love greek mythology, this is a book that covers Achilles’s life told from Patroclus’s point of view. It is more or less accurate, and covers a lot of details from the early lives of these two princes. This is a story about one great friendship that turns into something more, a lot of challenges, a lot of doubts, and a lot of choices to be made during a time of war.
The story is very fast paced, and I was skipping through the pages as fast as Achilles was killing Trojan warriors. From their childhood, to their growing up, to their adventures and the war, this book will never keep you calm, because every chapter something unexpected happens. Well, sometimes not too much, as I know the story, but even still, I was surprised a lot.
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/book-cover.png"/>;
<b><i>A thing that bothered me a lot throughout the whole book was the inaccuracy at some points, and hiding information. </i></B>
Now, we all know that Achilles was immortal. And we all know the story that his mother Thetis, a goddess of water dipped his body into the water in the river Styx. However, she was holding him by the heel, so his heel was the only place where he was vulnerable. This will be the reason of his death, when Apollo would direct Paris’s spear into Achilles’ heel.
Now - if this is such a common fact, and everybody who heard about Achilles knows it - why wouldn’t the author include it in the book. <b>It wasn’t mentioned once.. Not once… I found this really upsetting. </b>
Moving forward to the characters, we have Patroclus presented as the weaker one, the coward, the person that is mocked by everyone, not loved even by his parents and unworthy. ( Another point that bothered me is that this is not entirely true - according to Homer, Patroclus was apparently wiser than Achilles)
On the other hand, we have the opposite - a wise, brave, strong and handsome man, loved by everyone, immortal and a son of a goddess. We have a perfect example for a leader.
While fate connect these two to meet from their very early years, they also build a love relationship which they try to hide it at first. This relationship will cause them hatred from Thetis (Achilles’ mom) and will prompt them to make choices that might not be necessarily good ones. Now, Homer never mentioned a pederasty in his works between these two, but Miller does. And I am not sure how I feel about it. Not about the fact that they are gay, but the fact that this is Achilles.
All in all, I enjoyed this book. It is a great retelling of the story and a great time capture of the past. It wasn’t anything special, and I didn’t feel heartbroken in the end, but it was definitely worth reading it. I give it three stars - ★★★.
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/book-review1.png"/>;
The Song Of Achilles became a part of my TBR list right after I finished reading Circe. I loved Circe and it is one of my favorite books of 2018. I also enjoyed The Song of Achilles, but not nearly as much.
For the ones out there who love greek mythology, this is a book that covers Achilles’s life told from Patroclus’s point of view. It is more or less accurate, and covers a lot of details from the early lives of these two princes. This is a story about one great friendship that turns into something more, a lot of challenges, a lot of doubts, and a lot of choices to be made during a time of war.
The story is very fast paced, and I was skipping through the pages as fast as Achilles was killing Trojan warriors. From their childhood, to their growing up, to their adventures and the war, this book will never keep you calm, because every chapter something unexpected happens. Well, sometimes not too much, as I know the story, but even still, I was surprised a lot.
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/book-cover.png"/>;
<b><i>A thing that bothered me a lot throughout the whole book was the inaccuracy at some points, and hiding information. </i></B>
Now, we all know that Achilles was immortal. And we all know the story that his mother Thetis, a goddess of water dipped his body into the water in the river Styx. However, she was holding him by the heel, so his heel was the only place where he was vulnerable. This will be the reason of his death, when Apollo would direct Paris’s spear into Achilles’ heel.
Now - if this is such a common fact, and everybody who heard about Achilles knows it - why wouldn’t the author include it in the book. <b>It wasn’t mentioned once.. Not once… I found this really upsetting. </b>
Moving forward to the characters, we have Patroclus presented as the weaker one, the coward, the person that is mocked by everyone, not loved even by his parents and unworthy. ( Another point that bothered me is that this is not entirely true - according to Homer, Patroclus was apparently wiser than Achilles)
On the other hand, we have the opposite - a wise, brave, strong and handsome man, loved by everyone, immortal and a son of a goddess. We have a perfect example for a leader.
While fate connect these two to meet from their very early years, they also build a love relationship which they try to hide it at first. This relationship will cause them hatred from Thetis (Achilles’ mom) and will prompt them to make choices that might not be necessarily good ones. Now, Homer never mentioned a pederasty in his works between these two, but Miller does. And I am not sure how I feel about it. Not about the fact that they are gay, but the fact that this is Achilles.
All in all, I enjoyed this book. It is a great retelling of the story and a great time capture of the past. It wasn’t anything special, and I didn’t feel heartbroken in the end, but it was definitely worth reading it. I give it three stars - ★★★.