Search
Search results
Vladimir Putin recommended A Farewell to Arms in Books (curated)
Tim McGuire (301 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Nov 2, 2019
Old Movie Revisited: 1922. Another sweet Netflix made Stephen King movie, within less than a month of Gerald's Game, another awesome sauce flick. This one brings back Thomas Jane into the King fold for at least the third time, a trend I hope he continues, seems to fit in well... a roll in the Dark Tower perhaps, well, isn't he already... In this one, taking place sometime before WW2 ;) we have farmer Wilfred James and his wife, Arlette, and son Henry. Now Arlette wants out of the midwest farm crap fest and move to the big city, sell the farm, get a divorce... Wilfred, well doesnt really seem to care about the divorce part, but losing the farm and Henry, cause of course the boy will go off with mommy, isnt going to happen. So what is a dad to do, duh, convince your 14 year old son to help murder your wife, invent a tale she ran off and expect everything to go well. You may have guessed, it doesn't... Hell, even little Henry becomes a outlaw. Good flick, bringing in some old Stephen King landmarks to tie in his universe a little tighter, takes place near Hemingford Home, where a few well known King characters hail from, big one being Abagail Freemantle, of The Stand... But more recently in theatres... IT, one little fat boy named Ben Hanscom also once roved it roads! Thomas Jane was awesome, if a Shining remake was ever in the works to be more true to the book, I'd love to see Mr. Jane as Jack, i think he'd be insane :) Filmbufftim on FB
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated The Virgin Elizabeth: A Novel in Books
Mar 22, 2021
41 of 250
Book
Virgin
By Robin Maxwell
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
...a riveting portrait of Elizabeth I as a romantic and
vulnerable teenager, dangerously awakening to a perilous
liaison with the wrong man.
England, 1547: King Henry is dead. Elizabeth's half-brother, nine-year-old Edward, is king in name only. Thomas Seymour, brother to the ambitious duke who has seized power in this time of crisis, calculatingly works his way into Elizabeth's home in genteel Chelsea House. He marries Henry's widow, Catherine Parr, and uses his venerable charms and sexual magnetism to indulge his infatuation for young Elizabeth. Caught hopelessly under Thomas Seymour's spell, surrounded by kind friends and hidden enemies, Elizabeth can only follow her heart to ensure survival.
I’m fascinated by the Tudors and our English history and I love historical fiction so this was right up my street! Robin Maxwell certainly knows how to spin a tail! Elizabeth is definitely one of my favourite royals and to have an insight of her young life after already overcoming the embarrassment of her mother’s demise then this scandal truly shows why she remained unmarried and one of the longest strongest rulers!!
Book
Virgin
By Robin Maxwell
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
...a riveting portrait of Elizabeth I as a romantic and
vulnerable teenager, dangerously awakening to a perilous
liaison with the wrong man.
England, 1547: King Henry is dead. Elizabeth's half-brother, nine-year-old Edward, is king in name only. Thomas Seymour, brother to the ambitious duke who has seized power in this time of crisis, calculatingly works his way into Elizabeth's home in genteel Chelsea House. He marries Henry's widow, Catherine Parr, and uses his venerable charms and sexual magnetism to indulge his infatuation for young Elizabeth. Caught hopelessly under Thomas Seymour's spell, surrounded by kind friends and hidden enemies, Elizabeth can only follow her heart to ensure survival.
I’m fascinated by the Tudors and our English history and I love historical fiction so this was right up my street! Robin Maxwell certainly knows how to spin a tail! Elizabeth is definitely one of my favourite royals and to have an insight of her young life after already overcoming the embarrassment of her mother’s demise then this scandal truly shows why she remained unmarried and one of the longest strongest rulers!!
Kevin Smith recommended A Man for All Seasons (1966) in Movies (curated)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Road to Reckoning in Books
Dec 17, 2018
My rating: 2.5.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
<i>The Road to Reckoning</i> is British author Robert Lautner’s debut western-style novel. Set in the 1830s it follows a young boy’s long journey home through the open lands of America.
Tom Walker, now an elderly (or so it suggests) man, is giving an account of what happened to him during the year 1837 when “my life began” at the age of twelve. Tom’s father was a salesman who often let his son accompany him on his trips to sell spectacles. So when he receives the opportunity to pitch a new type of pistol known as a revolving gun for Samuel Colt at the <i>Patent Arms Manufacturing Company</i>, he brings Tom with him on the road. Originally living in New York they set out on a journey of many miles over several days demonstrating and taking orders for the pistol. However a dangerous encounter with a man, Thomas, Heywood, and his gang leaves Tom alone and orphaned.
There are two main characters to this story with Tom naturally being one of them. The other is an aging ranger named Henry Stands who Tom insists on following as he is travelling in the direction of New York and Tom’s home. To begin with Stands is very reluctant to have Tom tailing him on his journey especially as it becomes evident that he would have to provide for the boy. Stands ends up abandoning him but has a change of heart and returns in time to prevent Tom from being sent to St John’s Orphan Asylum.
And so their journey continues with Stands becoming kinder and even fatherly towards Tom, saving his life on more than one occasion; and Tom becoming all the more bolder. However the entire time is the fear and knowledge that Thomas Heywood is searching for Tom with the intention of leaving him in the same situation as his father – dead.
I have not read many western-style novels, and those that I have read I did not enjoy much, but <i>The Road to Reckoning</i> was better than I was anticipating. The main character being only twelve years old made the storyline more emotional especially when taking into account the death of his father and his growing attachment to Henry Stands.
The novel was well written and, although fictional, had an essence of factual truth about it. Samuel Colt was a real life American inventor who founded the <i>Colt’s Patent Fire-Arms Manufacturing Company</i>, which produced the revolver for commercial use. The blurb claims that fans of <i>Cold Mountain</i> and <i>True Grit</i>, neither of which I have read, would enjoy this story. Obviously I cannot give my opinion on that but I would say that to get the most out of reading <i>The Road to Reckoning</i> having an interest in western-style literature would be beneficial.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
<i>The Road to Reckoning</i> is British author Robert Lautner’s debut western-style novel. Set in the 1830s it follows a young boy’s long journey home through the open lands of America.
Tom Walker, now an elderly (or so it suggests) man, is giving an account of what happened to him during the year 1837 when “my life began” at the age of twelve. Tom’s father was a salesman who often let his son accompany him on his trips to sell spectacles. So when he receives the opportunity to pitch a new type of pistol known as a revolving gun for Samuel Colt at the <i>Patent Arms Manufacturing Company</i>, he brings Tom with him on the road. Originally living in New York they set out on a journey of many miles over several days demonstrating and taking orders for the pistol. However a dangerous encounter with a man, Thomas, Heywood, and his gang leaves Tom alone and orphaned.
There are two main characters to this story with Tom naturally being one of them. The other is an aging ranger named Henry Stands who Tom insists on following as he is travelling in the direction of New York and Tom’s home. To begin with Stands is very reluctant to have Tom tailing him on his journey especially as it becomes evident that he would have to provide for the boy. Stands ends up abandoning him but has a change of heart and returns in time to prevent Tom from being sent to St John’s Orphan Asylum.
And so their journey continues with Stands becoming kinder and even fatherly towards Tom, saving his life on more than one occasion; and Tom becoming all the more bolder. However the entire time is the fear and knowledge that Thomas Heywood is searching for Tom with the intention of leaving him in the same situation as his father – dead.
I have not read many western-style novels, and those that I have read I did not enjoy much, but <i>The Road to Reckoning</i> was better than I was anticipating. The main character being only twelve years old made the storyline more emotional especially when taking into account the death of his father and his growing attachment to Henry Stands.
The novel was well written and, although fictional, had an essence of factual truth about it. Samuel Colt was a real life American inventor who founded the <i>Colt’s Patent Fire-Arms Manufacturing Company</i>, which produced the revolver for commercial use. The blurb claims that fans of <i>Cold Mountain</i> and <i>True Grit</i>, neither of which I have read, would enjoy this story. Obviously I cannot give my opinion on that but I would say that to get the most out of reading <i>The Road to Reckoning</i> having an interest in western-style literature would be beneficial.
Deborah (162 KP) rated What Matters in Jane Austen?: Twenty Crucial Puzzles Solved in Books
Dec 21, 2018
This book is subtitled "Twenty Crucial Puzzle Solved". I'm not sure I quite agree with that - it's more a case of throwing some light on areas of the novels that may puzzle a modern reader but would have been plain to a contemporary audience.
For example, there is a chapter on the games played in the novels. No one (that I know!) plays at Speculation any more, but we can grasp both the fundamentals of the game ("I am never to see my cards and Mr Crawford does all the rest" as Lady Bertram puts it!) and read into it some further illumination of the participating characters. And of course understand why Sir Thomas thought that it might not amuse him to have wife wife as a partner in Whist!
There are sections on characters who have no reported speech (it had not occurred before that we never hear Captain Benwick speak, but it is quite true!), clears away the myth that there are no scenes where women are not present and wraps up with an important consideration of Jane Austen's place in the development of the novel. I think that as she is so very readable, and perhaps also because she is a woman writer, people in general are too apt to dismiss her importance, but her innovations in style are immeasurable. I don't think it is going too far to say that without Austen the novel would not have developed in the way it has. If you read Henry James, Flaubert, Kafka and a long et cetera, you best give your thanks to Jane Austen!
For example, there is a chapter on the games played in the novels. No one (that I know!) plays at Speculation any more, but we can grasp both the fundamentals of the game ("I am never to see my cards and Mr Crawford does all the rest" as Lady Bertram puts it!) and read into it some further illumination of the participating characters. And of course understand why Sir Thomas thought that it might not amuse him to have wife wife as a partner in Whist!
There are sections on characters who have no reported speech (it had not occurred before that we never hear Captain Benwick speak, but it is quite true!), clears away the myth that there are no scenes where women are not present and wraps up with an important consideration of Jane Austen's place in the development of the novel. I think that as she is so very readable, and perhaps also because she is a woman writer, people in general are too apt to dismiss her importance, but her innovations in style are immeasurable. I don't think it is going too far to say that without Austen the novel would not have developed in the way it has. If you read Henry James, Flaubert, Kafka and a long et cetera, you best give your thanks to Jane Austen!
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 1922 starts as Wilfred James (Jane) is about to lose part of his property to his wife Arlette (Parker), Wilfred doesn’t want to lose the farmland he has raised his son Henry (Schmid) on and wants to come up with a way to keep all the land.
Wilfred’s plan is to get his son to help him murder Arlette, to get the financial gain of taking ownership of the property. The guilt of what he did only ends up driving Wilfred crazy here as the mental state start to unfold.
Thoughts on 1922
Characters – Wilfred is a farmer and father that doesn’t want to leave his farm, he designs a plan to get that as he looks to stay but soon his mind starts slipping into insanity. Arlette is the wife that wants to move away but has to overcome the husband’s decision not to, only to find herself murdered and visiting him in ghost form. Henry is the son that helps with the cover up, but soon goes out on his own to learn the harsh reality of the world.
Performances – Thomas Jane does give us a good performance in this film, but the rest of the cast are just ok, none of the performances drag us into the film in any way to see where it will end up going.
Story – The story was hard to follow, I think the idea is that one man loses everything because of killing his wife, the problem is that this is an incredibly slow-moving film that doesn’t seem to go very far or have any redeemable qualities. Is gets caught in the middle of a breakdown and a supernatural movie without being set on one that could make either feel stronger.
Crime/Horror/Mystery – There was a crime as it leads to a cover up of a murder which leads to the horror involved in the story as the past comes to haunt Wilfred.
Settings – The settings do fit the time in question which is fine but nothing stands out as the best of the best.
Special Effects – The effects are good when used but the film doesn’t just turn to effects to make things happen.
Scene of the Movie – Final Scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It was so so so so slow.
Final Thoughts – Well this is one of the dullest movies of the year, it has nothing happening for the most part and for a Stephen King spin it only disappoints.
Overall: Boring is being polite.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/10/24/1922-2017/
Wilfred’s plan is to get his son to help him murder Arlette, to get the financial gain of taking ownership of the property. The guilt of what he did only ends up driving Wilfred crazy here as the mental state start to unfold.
Thoughts on 1922
Characters – Wilfred is a farmer and father that doesn’t want to leave his farm, he designs a plan to get that as he looks to stay but soon his mind starts slipping into insanity. Arlette is the wife that wants to move away but has to overcome the husband’s decision not to, only to find herself murdered and visiting him in ghost form. Henry is the son that helps with the cover up, but soon goes out on his own to learn the harsh reality of the world.
Performances – Thomas Jane does give us a good performance in this film, but the rest of the cast are just ok, none of the performances drag us into the film in any way to see where it will end up going.
Story – The story was hard to follow, I think the idea is that one man loses everything because of killing his wife, the problem is that this is an incredibly slow-moving film that doesn’t seem to go very far or have any redeemable qualities. Is gets caught in the middle of a breakdown and a supernatural movie without being set on one that could make either feel stronger.
Crime/Horror/Mystery – There was a crime as it leads to a cover up of a murder which leads to the horror involved in the story as the past comes to haunt Wilfred.
Settings – The settings do fit the time in question which is fine but nothing stands out as the best of the best.
Special Effects – The effects are good when used but the film doesn’t just turn to effects to make things happen.
Scene of the Movie – Final Scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It was so so so so slow.
Final Thoughts – Well this is one of the dullest movies of the year, it has nothing happening for the most part and for a Stephen King spin it only disappoints.
Overall: Boring is being polite.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/10/24/1922-2017/
Deborah (162 KP) rated Richard III: The King in the Car Park in Books
Dec 21, 2018
I quote from the final page of this publication: "The writer of this book will face similar virulent criticism. It will be savaged in the book reviews on Amazon, mainly by non-readers, to take its ratings and thus popularity down." In fact, this is the last, but by no means the only rant by the author who appears to have a definite chip on his shoulder for some reason. Since he subjects Thomas Penn's work, 'The Winter King' to such virulent criticism, one can only suspect that he was turned down by Penn's publisher. One can hardly be surprised. I have read this book, despite wanting on a number of occasions to give up in disgust. It is full of errors of spelling (e.g. youngest for younger, now instead of not), so has evidently not had either a proof reader or an editor. There are also many factual errors with names and titles becoming hopelessly confused. On one page we're told that Sir James Tyrell was hanged and a couple of pages later we're told that Henry Tudor was so kind as to merely condescend to cut his head off!
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
This isn’t the first time I’ve read this book, and it probably won’t be the last, either. I’m reading the first two books in preparation for reading the final book. Wolf Hall is as good as it was the first time round, and I think it’s a book that bears reading more than once - I’ve picked up things this time that I didn’t see the first read through. I have a sneaking suspicion that you could find something new, no matter how many times you read it.
It can be a little confusing at first, when Cromwell is referred to as ‘he’ throughout, but I slipped into the habit after a while. When learning about the Tudors at school, Cromwell is very much skimmed over. We learn that he had his moment of favour and then had his head chopped off 🤷🏼♀️. It seemed to be a bit of a professional hazard if you worked with royalty in those days.
This book gives Thomas Cromwell personality, feelings and you get to see his hopes and aspirations. He is portrayed as a thoroughly nice person, a good, caring father and employer. Someone who fought his way out of poverty, and tried to bring others out of that same situation. But he’s also shown to be calculating, cunning, a man that is no fool. There would have to be an element of the cut-throat about a man who wanted to work with Henry VIII; a king who was unpredictable, to say the least, and easily influenced by those around him.
I adore this period in history. Nothing is as shocking as real life, and I cannot for the life of me get over how cheap life was in a time where it should have been worth more (with no antibiotics, high infant and maternal mortality, death around the corner from simple illnesses). I’m really looking forward to rereading the second book in this trilogy now.
It can be a little confusing at first, when Cromwell is referred to as ‘he’ throughout, but I slipped into the habit after a while. When learning about the Tudors at school, Cromwell is very much skimmed over. We learn that he had his moment of favour and then had his head chopped off 🤷🏼♀️. It seemed to be a bit of a professional hazard if you worked with royalty in those days.
This book gives Thomas Cromwell personality, feelings and you get to see his hopes and aspirations. He is portrayed as a thoroughly nice person, a good, caring father and employer. Someone who fought his way out of poverty, and tried to bring others out of that same situation. But he’s also shown to be calculating, cunning, a man that is no fool. There would have to be an element of the cut-throat about a man who wanted to work with Henry VIII; a king who was unpredictable, to say the least, and easily influenced by those around him.
I adore this period in history. Nothing is as shocking as real life, and I cannot for the life of me get over how cheap life was in a time where it should have been worth more (with no antibiotics, high infant and maternal mortality, death around the corner from simple illnesses). I’m really looking forward to rereading the second book in this trilogy now.
Fred (860 KP) rated The Haunting of Bly Manor in TV
Oct 11, 2020
Yet another re-telling of The Turn of the Screw
This is a re-telling of The Turn of the Screw by Henry James, written in 1898. The last re-telling was 2020s The Turning, which was terrible. So how is this version?
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.