Search
GG
Gay Gotham: Art and Underground Culture in New York
Book
Queer people have always flocked to New York seeking freedom, forging close-knit groups for support...
Founding Friendships: Friendships Between Men and Women in the Early American Republic
Book
"When Harry Met Sally" is only the most iconic of popular American movies, books, and articles that...
How to Clone a Mammoth: The Science of De-Extinction
Book
Could extinct species, like mammoths and passenger pigeons, be brought back to life? The science...
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Storms of Malhado in Books
May 18, 2020
I admit that when I read the book synopsis for Storms of Malhado by Maria Elena Sandovici and saw there were ghosts involved, I knew I had to read this book! While it turned out not to be so much of a ghost story but something much much more, it was still a great read!
I felt that the plot for Storms of Malhado was fairly original. The reader is taken through three different points in time starting in 1900 with Suzanne's story, followed by 1961 with Betty's story, and then to 2008 with Katie's story. We learn of how each woman is with a man that is slippery and unobtainable yet each woman yearns to make the relationship work. Each story leads up to a horrible hurricane from each year. What will each woman sacrifice for love, and will it lead up to their demise? Storms of Malhado is full of life lessons, the strongest being that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. There is so much symbolism throughout this novel which I didn't catch some of it until I finished reading and reflected back on what I had just read. Sandovici does a fantastic job at painting a beautiful picture of what life was like for each woman. It's easy to get lost in the narrative and forget you're only reading about the characters instead of living their life! The only thing about the plot that lets it down a little is the ending. It just felt a bit messy and confusing. I can't go into great detail because of spoilers. The ending, while I believe in what happened, just seemed a little far fetched and a little too neat if that makes sense. Three people experiencing the same thing at the same time and calling each other by different names, well, it just seemed kind of out there. I wish I could go into more detail, but I really don't want to give too much away. However, all loose ends are tied up by the end of book, and it becomes obvious how all three narratives within Storms of Malhado are related.
The majority of the characters in Storms of Malhado were well fleshed out and very realistic feeling. I enjoyed reading about Suzanne, Josephine, and Desmond. Suzanne was an interesting character to read about, but there were times she made me angry especially towards her ending. I could actually feel how much she loved and longed after Desmond. I just felt that she could be a little selfish at times. However, I feel that we've all been a little selfish when it comes to love. I could really feel how much Josephine loved Suzanne and wanted the best for her. Josephine was such a great character! Betty, Edna, and Cornelius also had an interesting story line. I felt like I connected with Betty the most. I could feel her frustration with Carl seeping through the pages as well as how much she wanted Cornelius no matter how frustrating he was. I loved Edna the most though, and it made me wish I had an Edna in my life to care for me and be there for me. Betty seemed to not have her head in the clouds as much as Suzanne did which was nice. The narrative I felt that was a little underdeveloped was that of Katie, her boyfriend George, and her mother. We don't get to read much about them until the very end. I would have liked more insight into George and Katie's relationship before the storm hits. The reader gets all this backstory into Suzanne's and Desmond's relationship as well as Betty's and Cornelius' relationship, yet there isn't much back story for Katie and George. All of a sudden towards the ending, we are told that Katie and George have a rocky relationship. I wanted to know why it was so rocky instead of just little bits and pieces. Katie's and George's relationship just felt like it was missing so much. The relationship between Katie and her mother also felt lacking. If her relationship was a strong with her mother as the relationship between Suzanne and Josephine as well as the relationship between Betty and Edna, it did not come across that way in the book. Katie's relationships just felt rushed.
Trigger warnings for Storms of Malhado include infidelity, adultery, alcohol use, death, drug use, some light profanity, and sexual situations (although not graphic).
All in all, Storms of Malhado is a highly interesting read that will leave you hooked on each and every word. It grabs you by the hand and doesn't let go until the end. With fantastic writing, a highly interesting plot, and entertaining characters, Storms of Malhado is a must read. I would definitely recommend Storms of Malhado by Maria Elena Sandovici to those aged 16+ who are after a book that will leave them thinking about it long after they are done reading it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Maria Elena Sandovici for providing me with a paperback of Storms of Malhado in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I felt that the plot for Storms of Malhado was fairly original. The reader is taken through three different points in time starting in 1900 with Suzanne's story, followed by 1961 with Betty's story, and then to 2008 with Katie's story. We learn of how each woman is with a man that is slippery and unobtainable yet each woman yearns to make the relationship work. Each story leads up to a horrible hurricane from each year. What will each woman sacrifice for love, and will it lead up to their demise? Storms of Malhado is full of life lessons, the strongest being that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. There is so much symbolism throughout this novel which I didn't catch some of it until I finished reading and reflected back on what I had just read. Sandovici does a fantastic job at painting a beautiful picture of what life was like for each woman. It's easy to get lost in the narrative and forget you're only reading about the characters instead of living their life! The only thing about the plot that lets it down a little is the ending. It just felt a bit messy and confusing. I can't go into great detail because of spoilers. The ending, while I believe in what happened, just seemed a little far fetched and a little too neat if that makes sense. Three people experiencing the same thing at the same time and calling each other by different names, well, it just seemed kind of out there. I wish I could go into more detail, but I really don't want to give too much away. However, all loose ends are tied up by the end of book, and it becomes obvious how all three narratives within Storms of Malhado are related.
The majority of the characters in Storms of Malhado were well fleshed out and very realistic feeling. I enjoyed reading about Suzanne, Josephine, and Desmond. Suzanne was an interesting character to read about, but there were times she made me angry especially towards her ending. I could actually feel how much she loved and longed after Desmond. I just felt that she could be a little selfish at times. However, I feel that we've all been a little selfish when it comes to love. I could really feel how much Josephine loved Suzanne and wanted the best for her. Josephine was such a great character! Betty, Edna, and Cornelius also had an interesting story line. I felt like I connected with Betty the most. I could feel her frustration with Carl seeping through the pages as well as how much she wanted Cornelius no matter how frustrating he was. I loved Edna the most though, and it made me wish I had an Edna in my life to care for me and be there for me. Betty seemed to not have her head in the clouds as much as Suzanne did which was nice. The narrative I felt that was a little underdeveloped was that of Katie, her boyfriend George, and her mother. We don't get to read much about them until the very end. I would have liked more insight into George and Katie's relationship before the storm hits. The reader gets all this backstory into Suzanne's and Desmond's relationship as well as Betty's and Cornelius' relationship, yet there isn't much back story for Katie and George. All of a sudden towards the ending, we are told that Katie and George have a rocky relationship. I wanted to know why it was so rocky instead of just little bits and pieces. Katie's and George's relationship just felt like it was missing so much. The relationship between Katie and her mother also felt lacking. If her relationship was a strong with her mother as the relationship between Suzanne and Josephine as well as the relationship between Betty and Edna, it did not come across that way in the book. Katie's relationships just felt rushed.
Trigger warnings for Storms of Malhado include infidelity, adultery, alcohol use, death, drug use, some light profanity, and sexual situations (although not graphic).
All in all, Storms of Malhado is a highly interesting read that will leave you hooked on each and every word. It grabs you by the hand and doesn't let go until the end. With fantastic writing, a highly interesting plot, and entertaining characters, Storms of Malhado is a must read. I would definitely recommend Storms of Malhado by Maria Elena Sandovici to those aged 16+ who are after a book that will leave them thinking about it long after they are done reading it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Maria Elena Sandovici for providing me with a paperback of Storms of Malhado in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Game Of Thrones - Season 7 in TV
Sep 5, 2017
Inconsistent characters (2 more)
Lazy writing
Huge plot holes
Who Wrote This?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Full disclosure, I wasn't a huge GoT fan to begin with, but this season takes the cake for the amount of nonsense it expected the viewer to accept without question. The show is ahead of the books at this point, so its no longer based on George RR Martin's books and it shows.
From this point on, I will be spoiling the events of the season, so if you haven't seen it and you care about spoilers, look away now.
If you are looking for a drinking game to play this season, drink every time Danyres is an entitled brat, drink every time Bran says something pretentious, drink every time John mentions the white walkers and drink when Tyrion screws up and I guarantee you that you won't be able to stand up by the end of the season.
There were two things in particular that got under my skin this season. First of all Littlefinger, (the supposed 'smartest character in the show,') got outsmarted by Arya and Sansa? Are you kidding? His death was so unsatisfying and ridiculous and in past seasons that character would have never have been stupid enough to get himself into that situation without working out a way to get himself away with his life.
The second thing is Bran. You can't have an all knowing character that doesn't know things. How is it that Sam has to be the one to tell Bran about John's parents being married when he was born? I've heard the excuse made that Bran has to choose to go to a period in history in order to see what happened at that time, but we have seen that he was back there last season when John was born in that tower! Also, why didn't he inform his brother that the Night King had a dragon, as soon as it happened? I realise that Bran is in Winterfell and John is with Danyres, but in the last episode, John sends Bran a note via carrier pigeon, so why couldn't he have sent one to John? Why didn't Bran see that Cersei was going to betray John and Danyres? If in the next season John and Dany are surprised when Cersei doesn't back them, then the writing for this show has well and truly fell off a cliff.
From this point on, I will be spoiling the events of the season, so if you haven't seen it and you care about spoilers, look away now.
If you are looking for a drinking game to play this season, drink every time Danyres is an entitled brat, drink every time Bran says something pretentious, drink every time John mentions the white walkers and drink when Tyrion screws up and I guarantee you that you won't be able to stand up by the end of the season.
There were two things in particular that got under my skin this season. First of all Littlefinger, (the supposed 'smartest character in the show,') got outsmarted by Arya and Sansa? Are you kidding? His death was so unsatisfying and ridiculous and in past seasons that character would have never have been stupid enough to get himself into that situation without working out a way to get himself away with his life.
The second thing is Bran. You can't have an all knowing character that doesn't know things. How is it that Sam has to be the one to tell Bran about John's parents being married when he was born? I've heard the excuse made that Bran has to choose to go to a period in history in order to see what happened at that time, but we have seen that he was back there last season when John was born in that tower! Also, why didn't he inform his brother that the Night King had a dragon, as soon as it happened? I realise that Bran is in Winterfell and John is with Danyres, but in the last episode, John sends Bran a note via carrier pigeon, so why couldn't he have sent one to John? Why didn't Bran see that Cersei was going to betray John and Danyres? If in the next season John and Dany are surprised when Cersei doesn't back them, then the writing for this show has well and truly fell off a cliff.
Breaking Glass Barefoot
Book
Hazel O'Connor has loved and been loved, but her generosity and spirit of adventure have often come...
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Truth (2015) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019
The truth is out there...
Doubtful anyone from outside the United States (or even many within the US) would remember "Rathergate", the subject this film explores, but I found it fascinating nonetheless.
The US during the 2004 presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry saw the usual mudslinging back and forth, but this film is not really about that. The film focuses on a news story by CBS news involving then airmen George W Bush and his "attempt" to get out of going to Vietnam and certain important military paper which were supposed to have corroborated these events.
Producer Mary Mapes and then anchor Dan Rather decided to air the story on 60 Minutes before they had flushed out all their sources and may have brushed aside criticism which happened to be against their political beliefs and ran with the story anyways. After airing in the fall of 2004 certain aspects of the documents came into question as to whether they could've been written with typewriters of the time or whether these documents were forgeries made by someone who could've merely used Microsoft Word instead.
Repeated attempts to legitimize their accuracy ended up having the opposite effects having witnesses change their stories, allegiances or even admit they had not been honest when presenting their original facts.
Since this is based on actual events, I can say this ended up costing producer Mapes and Rather their careers and sullied their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Even though the film has a very specific set of facts it has to deal with, I found it just as interesting when the director showed scenes of the audience viewing the story when it aired and then began to think about the state of modern news.
Nowadays, most people get their news cycle from internet headlines, scrolling information at the bottoms of television screens and even siloed one-sided stories that support only their own personal political beliefs
I think the broader message this film is trying to convey is that news organizations have the utmost responsibility to not only the report the news, but to keep their biases out of the mix and to make sure every fact is checked and rechecked to make sure they report accurately. News can change public opinion and even though they mostly get things correct, mostly isn't good enough.
I love Cate Blanchett and the legend Robert Redford and they don't disappoint here. The screenplay by writer and first time director James Vanderbilt is pointed and mostly avoids injecting opinion into the facts and presents an interesting and fascinating film I would easily recommend.
The US during the 2004 presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry saw the usual mudslinging back and forth, but this film is not really about that. The film focuses on a news story by CBS news involving then airmen George W Bush and his "attempt" to get out of going to Vietnam and certain important military paper which were supposed to have corroborated these events.
Producer Mary Mapes and then anchor Dan Rather decided to air the story on 60 Minutes before they had flushed out all their sources and may have brushed aside criticism which happened to be against their political beliefs and ran with the story anyways. After airing in the fall of 2004 certain aspects of the documents came into question as to whether they could've been written with typewriters of the time or whether these documents were forgeries made by someone who could've merely used Microsoft Word instead.
Repeated attempts to legitimize their accuracy ended up having the opposite effects having witnesses change their stories, allegiances or even admit they had not been honest when presenting their original facts.
Since this is based on actual events, I can say this ended up costing producer Mapes and Rather their careers and sullied their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Even though the film has a very specific set of facts it has to deal with, I found it just as interesting when the director showed scenes of the audience viewing the story when it aired and then began to think about the state of modern news.
Nowadays, most people get their news cycle from internet headlines, scrolling information at the bottoms of television screens and even siloed one-sided stories that support only their own personal political beliefs
I think the broader message this film is trying to convey is that news organizations have the utmost responsibility to not only the report the news, but to keep their biases out of the mix and to make sure every fact is checked and rechecked to make sure they report accurately. News can change public opinion and even though they mostly get things correct, mostly isn't good enough.
I love Cate Blanchett and the legend Robert Redford and they don't disappoint here. The screenplay by writer and first time director James Vanderbilt is pointed and mostly avoids injecting opinion into the facts and presents an interesting and fascinating film I would easily recommend.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Mystery of Princess Louise: Queen Victoria's Rebellious Daughter
Book
The secrets of Queen Victoria's sixth child, Princess Louise, may be destined to remain hidden...
The House in France: A Memoir
Book
In 2009, six years after her mother's death, Gully Wells returns to La Migoua, the house in Provence...