Search
Search results
Louise (64 KP) rated The Unseeing in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I am a lover of Historical fiction especially Victorian London so when I read the synopsis of ‘The Unseeing’ I knew I had to read it. This is Anna Mazzola’s debut novel and I can tell you it certainly delivered.
The year is 1837 and Sarah Gale is sentenced to be hung, she is believed to have aid and abet James Greenacre in the death of Hannah Brown. Sarah Gale was having an on/off relationship with Greenacre and living with him in his home until he met Hannah. Hannah Brown was a spinster with a bit of money and business’s in her possession,until her body parts were found randomly around London.Greenacre a conniving man that he is only wanted Hannah for her money and threw Sarah out a few days before Christmas. A few days after Christmas Hannah Brown is gone and Sarah Gale is back in Greenacre’s bed. Sarah is adamant that she knows nothing about the disappearance or death of Hannah Brown, but no-one believes her.
Sarah Gale and a Women’s institute have requested Sarah to be pardoned as she is to be hung but is adamant she knows nothing. Edmund Fleetwood has been assigned the case, his job is to see if she will talk or if there is any new evidence. This is one of the most spoken about cases of the time and this could be the career break that Edmund needs, however Sarah Gale is still adamant that she knows nothing. Can this meek, pale women really be involved in a murder?
This book was amazing, I felt like I had been transported to London in 1837. The writing was so atmospheric, the descriptions of the sounds, the streets and the way the characters spoke just blew me away, and it was consistent throughout the book. The Unseeing is a slow burn book that drip feeds you information slowly and you start piecing it together like a jigsaw puzzle. I was definitely hooked and needed to know how Hannah had come to be in pieces around London and what was going to happen to Sarah. There is a twist and I didn’t see it coming whatsoever and was left shocked for some time.
This book is based on a true crime that happened in 1837 and is known as the Edgeware Murder. Sarah Gale and John Greenacre are the names of the actual people involved and the court scripts can be seen at the Old Bailey website. You can definitely tell that the Mazzola had knowledge of the justice system as it was very well researched. I loved that Mazzola managed to make a fictional book out of a true crime and it makes it even more intriguing to read. It does make you think of how the justice system failed a lot of people back in Victorian times.
I will definitely be reading anything else Anna Mazzola release and recommend this book you are interested true crime and historical fiction.
I rated this 4 out of 5 stars
The year is 1837 and Sarah Gale is sentenced to be hung, she is believed to have aid and abet James Greenacre in the death of Hannah Brown. Sarah Gale was having an on/off relationship with Greenacre and living with him in his home until he met Hannah. Hannah Brown was a spinster with a bit of money and business’s in her possession,until her body parts were found randomly around London.Greenacre a conniving man that he is only wanted Hannah for her money and threw Sarah out a few days before Christmas. A few days after Christmas Hannah Brown is gone and Sarah Gale is back in Greenacre’s bed. Sarah is adamant that she knows nothing about the disappearance or death of Hannah Brown, but no-one believes her.
Sarah Gale and a Women’s institute have requested Sarah to be pardoned as she is to be hung but is adamant she knows nothing. Edmund Fleetwood has been assigned the case, his job is to see if she will talk or if there is any new evidence. This is one of the most spoken about cases of the time and this could be the career break that Edmund needs, however Sarah Gale is still adamant that she knows nothing. Can this meek, pale women really be involved in a murder?
This book was amazing, I felt like I had been transported to London in 1837. The writing was so atmospheric, the descriptions of the sounds, the streets and the way the characters spoke just blew me away, and it was consistent throughout the book. The Unseeing is a slow burn book that drip feeds you information slowly and you start piecing it together like a jigsaw puzzle. I was definitely hooked and needed to know how Hannah had come to be in pieces around London and what was going to happen to Sarah. There is a twist and I didn’t see it coming whatsoever and was left shocked for some time.
This book is based on a true crime that happened in 1837 and is known as the Edgeware Murder. Sarah Gale and John Greenacre are the names of the actual people involved and the court scripts can be seen at the Old Bailey website. You can definitely tell that the Mazzola had knowledge of the justice system as it was very well researched. I loved that Mazzola managed to make a fictional book out of a true crime and it makes it even more intriguing to read. It does make you think of how the justice system failed a lot of people back in Victorian times.
I will definitely be reading anything else Anna Mazzola release and recommend this book you are interested true crime and historical fiction.
I rated this 4 out of 5 stars
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Everything I Never Told You in Books
Feb 8, 2018
I forget where I saw a recommendation for this book (who am I kidding, probably <i>People</i> or <i>Entertainment Weekly</i>, about the extent of my "literary" reading these days), but it wasn't quite what I expected. Less mystery surrounding a disappearance/death and more "human interest" about a-- truth be told-- rather unlikable family.
The novel chronicles the Lee family, who wakes up one day to find their eldest daughter/sister, Lydia, missing. Eventually Lydia's body is found in the local lake, and the family is turned upside down.
It goes without saying, but it's really a rather depressing book. Lydia's parents, Marilyn and James, are just awful, and not just because they are grieving. I found very little to like in them. Lydia's siblings, Nath and Hannah, aren't nearly as bad (Hannah is truly the redeeming one in the family), but still. It's hard to root for a family that you don't much care for. There are also some strange side plots involving the siblings that never really seem resolved.
As a parent, I found aspects of the book interesting -- the way Lydia's mom pushes her so much to attain a dream that really belonged to Marilyn. In addition, the family is still reeling from Marilyn's brief disappearance before Hannah was even born. Ng does do a good job of showing how much this impacts the family, especially the kids. It's a little frightening, really, as the sinking realization of how every little thing you do can follow your children, even 10 years later (though in Marilyn's case, she really does some damaging things).
Still, those redeeming moments couldn't salvage the whole book for me. I liked it well enough, but I was left at the end feeling a little depressed and annoyed and wishing more loose ends were tied up.
The novel chronicles the Lee family, who wakes up one day to find their eldest daughter/sister, Lydia, missing. Eventually Lydia's body is found in the local lake, and the family is turned upside down.
It goes without saying, but it's really a rather depressing book. Lydia's parents, Marilyn and James, are just awful, and not just because they are grieving. I found very little to like in them. Lydia's siblings, Nath and Hannah, aren't nearly as bad (Hannah is truly the redeeming one in the family), but still. It's hard to root for a family that you don't much care for. There are also some strange side plots involving the siblings that never really seem resolved.
As a parent, I found aspects of the book interesting -- the way Lydia's mom pushes her so much to attain a dream that really belonged to Marilyn. In addition, the family is still reeling from Marilyn's brief disappearance before Hannah was even born. Ng does do a good job of showing how much this impacts the family, especially the kids. It's a little frightening, really, as the sinking realization of how every little thing you do can follow your children, even 10 years later (though in Marilyn's case, she really does some damaging things).
Still, those redeeming moments couldn't salvage the whole book for me. I liked it well enough, but I was left at the end feeling a little depressed and annoyed and wishing more loose ends were tied up.
Joel Schumacher recommended Blade Runner (1982) in Movies (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Virtually brilliant with Easter Eggs a plenty.
Of all the Spielberg films of recent years – and possibly with the exception of “The BFG” – this was the film whose trailer disconcerted me the most. It really looked dire: CGI over heart; gimmicks over substance. I was right about ‘The BFG”, one of my least favourite Spielberg flicks. I was definitely wrong about “Ready Player One”: it’s a blast.
The film is fun in continually throwing surprises at you, including those actors not included in the trailer and only on small print on the poster. So I won’t spoil that here for you (you can of course look them up on imdb if you want to: but I suggest you try to see this one ‘cold’).
It’s 2044, and the majority of the population have taken the next logical step of video gaming and virtual reality and retreated into their own headsets, living out their lives primarily as avatars within the fanciful landscapes of “The Oasis”. You can “be” anyone and (subject to gaining the necessary credits) “do” anything there.
When the housing market is stacked against you. Columbus Ohio circa 2044.
The Oasis was the brainchild of a (Steve Wozniak-like) genius called James Halliday (played in enormous style by “Actor R”) and supported by his (Steve Jobs-like) business partner Ogden Morrow (“Actor P”). The two had a big falling out leaving Halliday in total control of the Oasis. But he died, and his dying “game” was to devise a devious competition that left a trail of three virtual keys in the Oasis leading to an ‘easter egg’: which if found would provide the finder with total ownership of the Oasis and the trillions of dollars that it is worth.
But the game is not only played by amateur “gunters” (egg-hunters) like our hero Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan, “X-Men: Apocalypse“) and his in-Oasis flirting partner Samantha (Olivia Cooke, “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl”); there are big corporate game-hunters involved like IoI (that’s eye-oh-eye, not one-oh-one as I assumed from the trailer) who fill warehouses with combinations of nerd-consultants and professional game players to try to find the keys before anyone else. Which hardly seems fair does it? Ruthless boss Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“) and his tough-as-nails hench-woman F’Nale Zandor (Hannah John-Kamen, “Tomb Raider“) really couldn’t give a toss!
In the future, everyone is reaching out for something.
What follows is two-hours of high-octane game-play and eye-popping 3D (it is good in 3D by the way) that melds a baseline of “Avatar” with soupçons of “Tron”, “Minority Report” and Dan Brown novels. But its a blend that works.
I was afraid as I said that CGI would squash flat any hope of character development and story, and – yes – to be sure this is ‘suppressed’ a bit. You never get to really know many of the ‘pack’ members to any great level other than Wade and Samantha. And exactly what drives the corporate protagonists, other than “corporate greed”, is not particularly clear. What gives the film heart though are the performances of “Actor P” and (particularly) “Actor R”, who again steals every scene he is in. For their limited screen time together, the pair bounce off each other in a delightful way.
I have to make a confession at this point that I spent the whole film thinking “Miles Teller is way too old for the part of Wade”! Tye Sheridan (who I think *does* bear a likeness!) is actually much more age appropriate, and is fine in the role. But the star performance for me, out of the youngsters at least, was Oldham’s-own Olivia Cooke, who has a genuinely magnetic screen presence. She is most definitely a name to watch for the future.
Ready Player One
Young star of the show for me – Olivia Cooke as Samantha.
Lena Waithe (“Master of None”) plays Wade’s inventor friend Helen.
The story, although simple and quite one-dimensional, in the main intrigues: there is nothing like a Mario-style chase for keys to entertain when it is done well (I am so old and crusty that in my day it was “Manic Miner” on a ZX-Spectrum!).
He’s iron and he’s just gigantic! Reb’s creation becomes a force to be reckoned with when needed.
And there’s not just one “Easter Egg” in this film: the film is rammed to the rafters with throwbacks to classic pop-culture icons of past decades, and particularly the 80’s…. the film could have been subtitled “I ❤ 80’s”. Some of these are subliminal (Mayor Goldie Wilson anyone?), and others are more prominent but very clever: “The Zemekis cube” and “The Holy Hand Grenade” being prime examples. This is a film that deserves buying on Blu-ray and then slo-mo-ing through! The nostalgia extends to the music by Alan Silvestri, with occasional motifs from his most famous soundtrack!
For me though, the highspot of the film is a journey into a recreation of a classic ’80’s film which – while a scary sequence, earning for sure its 12A UK rating – is done with verve and chutzpah.
Wade’s avatar, Parzival.
Although a little overlong (2 hours 20 mins) and getting rather over-blown and LOTR-esque in the finale, the ending is very satisfying – roll on Tuesdays and Thursdays!
Spielberg’s recent films have been largely solid and well-constructed watches (“The Post” and “Bridge of Spies” for example) but they have been more niche than mainstream box office draws. I firmly predict that “Ready Player One” will change that: here Spielberg has a sure-fire hit on his hands and word of mouth (rather than the ho-hum trailer) should assure that.
The film is fun in continually throwing surprises at you, including those actors not included in the trailer and only on small print on the poster. So I won’t spoil that here for you (you can of course look them up on imdb if you want to: but I suggest you try to see this one ‘cold’).
It’s 2044, and the majority of the population have taken the next logical step of video gaming and virtual reality and retreated into their own headsets, living out their lives primarily as avatars within the fanciful landscapes of “The Oasis”. You can “be” anyone and (subject to gaining the necessary credits) “do” anything there.
When the housing market is stacked against you. Columbus Ohio circa 2044.
The Oasis was the brainchild of a (Steve Wozniak-like) genius called James Halliday (played in enormous style by “Actor R”) and supported by his (Steve Jobs-like) business partner Ogden Morrow (“Actor P”). The two had a big falling out leaving Halliday in total control of the Oasis. But he died, and his dying “game” was to devise a devious competition that left a trail of three virtual keys in the Oasis leading to an ‘easter egg’: which if found would provide the finder with total ownership of the Oasis and the trillions of dollars that it is worth.
But the game is not only played by amateur “gunters” (egg-hunters) like our hero Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan, “X-Men: Apocalypse“) and his in-Oasis flirting partner Samantha (Olivia Cooke, “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl”); there are big corporate game-hunters involved like IoI (that’s eye-oh-eye, not one-oh-one as I assumed from the trailer) who fill warehouses with combinations of nerd-consultants and professional game players to try to find the keys before anyone else. Which hardly seems fair does it? Ruthless boss Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“) and his tough-as-nails hench-woman F’Nale Zandor (Hannah John-Kamen, “Tomb Raider“) really couldn’t give a toss!
In the future, everyone is reaching out for something.
What follows is two-hours of high-octane game-play and eye-popping 3D (it is good in 3D by the way) that melds a baseline of “Avatar” with soupçons of “Tron”, “Minority Report” and Dan Brown novels. But its a blend that works.
I was afraid as I said that CGI would squash flat any hope of character development and story, and – yes – to be sure this is ‘suppressed’ a bit. You never get to really know many of the ‘pack’ members to any great level other than Wade and Samantha. And exactly what drives the corporate protagonists, other than “corporate greed”, is not particularly clear. What gives the film heart though are the performances of “Actor P” and (particularly) “Actor R”, who again steals every scene he is in. For their limited screen time together, the pair bounce off each other in a delightful way.
I have to make a confession at this point that I spent the whole film thinking “Miles Teller is way too old for the part of Wade”! Tye Sheridan (who I think *does* bear a likeness!) is actually much more age appropriate, and is fine in the role. But the star performance for me, out of the youngsters at least, was Oldham’s-own Olivia Cooke, who has a genuinely magnetic screen presence. She is most definitely a name to watch for the future.
Ready Player One
Young star of the show for me – Olivia Cooke as Samantha.
Lena Waithe (“Master of None”) plays Wade’s inventor friend Helen.
The story, although simple and quite one-dimensional, in the main intrigues: there is nothing like a Mario-style chase for keys to entertain when it is done well (I am so old and crusty that in my day it was “Manic Miner” on a ZX-Spectrum!).
He’s iron and he’s just gigantic! Reb’s creation becomes a force to be reckoned with when needed.
And there’s not just one “Easter Egg” in this film: the film is rammed to the rafters with throwbacks to classic pop-culture icons of past decades, and particularly the 80’s…. the film could have been subtitled “I ❤ 80’s”. Some of these are subliminal (Mayor Goldie Wilson anyone?), and others are more prominent but very clever: “The Zemekis cube” and “The Holy Hand Grenade” being prime examples. This is a film that deserves buying on Blu-ray and then slo-mo-ing through! The nostalgia extends to the music by Alan Silvestri, with occasional motifs from his most famous soundtrack!
For me though, the highspot of the film is a journey into a recreation of a classic ’80’s film which – while a scary sequence, earning for sure its 12A UK rating – is done with verve and chutzpah.
Wade’s avatar, Parzival.
Although a little overlong (2 hours 20 mins) and getting rather over-blown and LOTR-esque in the finale, the ending is very satisfying – roll on Tuesdays and Thursdays!
Spielberg’s recent films have been largely solid and well-constructed watches (“The Post” and “Bridge of Spies” for example) but they have been more niche than mainstream box office draws. I firmly predict that “Ready Player One” will change that: here Spielberg has a sure-fire hit on his hands and word of mouth (rather than the ho-hum trailer) should assure that.