Search
Search results
Bee (3 KP) rated History on Film/Film on History in Books
Feb 9, 2019
Anyone concerned with film criticism and historiophoty should read from Rosenstone.
His arguments on the accuracy of historical film, the representation of history on screen and the questions of "good" and "bad" films are engaging and a good introduction to this discourse while his writing is clear, his theories well referenced for wider research and his tone easily accessable.
He takes a closer look at History and the differences as well as similarities to history on screen as opposed to writing while questioning if there is even such thing as historical accuracy.
This is a great read for scholarly use but also for the casual fans of cinema.
His arguments on the accuracy of historical film, the representation of history on screen and the questions of "good" and "bad" films are engaging and a good introduction to this discourse while his writing is clear, his theories well referenced for wider research and his tone easily accessable.
He takes a closer look at History and the differences as well as similarities to history on screen as opposed to writing while questioning if there is even such thing as historical accuracy.
This is a great read for scholarly use but also for the casual fans of cinema.
David McK (3207 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2021)
Like, I'm sure, many others, if you'd mentioned the words 'Wonder Woman' to me prior to 2016 Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice I probably would have thought of the 1970s(?) Linda Carter starring TV series.
That was a role that Gal Gadot took in in the 2016 movie, portraying a different take on the character: one who has largely remained in the background throughout history, only revealing herself (and her powers) towards the end of that movie.
This film takes place at an earlier period in her life (albeit 'bookended' by a modern day setting, with Diana receiving a vintage photo of her in costume): during the First World War, to be precise, when Diana first leaves the Amazonian island paradise of Thermiscyra and enters the world, discovering her powers and heritage in the process.
While there may be an element of truth in the criticism that the plot of this movie is - largely - a role-reversed Captain America (World War setting? Sacrificial ending?) and that it probably could have done without the CGI battle at the end (which, IMO, lessened the impact the movie would have had without it) this is still a very enjoyable movie indeed!
As an aside: the stand-out scene where Diana crosses No-Mans land on her own? That was nearly cut from the movie.
That was a role that Gal Gadot took in in the 2016 movie, portraying a different take on the character: one who has largely remained in the background throughout history, only revealing herself (and her powers) towards the end of that movie.
This film takes place at an earlier period in her life (albeit 'bookended' by a modern day setting, with Diana receiving a vintage photo of her in costume): during the First World War, to be precise, when Diana first leaves the Amazonian island paradise of Thermiscyra and enters the world, discovering her powers and heritage in the process.
While there may be an element of truth in the criticism that the plot of this movie is - largely - a role-reversed Captain America (World War setting? Sacrificial ending?) and that it probably could have done without the CGI battle at the end (which, IMO, lessened the impact the movie would have had without it) this is still a very enjoyable movie indeed!
As an aside: the stand-out scene where Diana crosses No-Mans land on her own? That was nearly cut from the movie.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated You Will Be Safe Here in Books
Jul 10, 2019
Moving and thought provoking
I can’t lie, history isn’t a strong subject of mine so I knew very little about the South African concentration camps and these New Dawn Type camps when i first started this book. So for me, the events detailed and unfolding in this book are a disturbing revelation. It might be fiction, but it’s based on historical true events so I know it’s not far from the truth. It’s shocking and immensely moving, reading about the plight of a number of characters from 1901 to the present date. At first I didn’t understand why this started off in 1901 and worked it’s way through different characters to the almost present day, but it all makes sense and intertwines in a way as the book goes on and it’s a great way to tell a story. This is wonderfully written, bringing out a number of reactions and the emotions in the reader as it goes on and I felt a mixture of sheer anger and frustration and sadness reading this. The characters are all well developed, with their own flaws and traits that make them both intriguing and sometimes frustrating (but in a good way) to read. My only criticism would be that the ending seemed a little rushed in comparison to the rest of the book, and I wouldn’t have minded a slightly longer book at the benefit of a less rushed ending.
This isn’t a book I would have ordinarily thought of reading, but I’m glad I did and would highly recommend reading it!
This isn’t a book I would have ordinarily thought of reading, but I’m glad I did and would highly recommend reading it!
BeRad89 (48 KP) rated I Was Anastasia in Books
Mar 26, 2018
Anna Anderson has spent over fifty years of her life fighting to prove she is the Grand Duchess Anastasia. Her story begins near the end as she battles in court to get recognition. Anastasia is 18 months away from that fateful night in Yekaterinburg. Does she in fact survive?
I love the time line set up in this book. It is an amazing idea to have both women moving toward each other like trains on the same track. The moment they collide will be the moment we learn the truth. While I do not like Anna on a personal level, I appreciate how cunning, clever, and totally insane she is. She is one of most interesting characters I have ever read. I appreciate the amount of research that must have went into this novel. While it is a work of fiction, I bet that was a time consuming task.
The only criticism I can possibly have for this book is the very thing I like most: The Timeline. Some readers may find the nonlinear design difficult to follow.
I Was Anastasia by Ariel Lawhon is a work of historical fiction. It is the prefect marriage of creativity and intelligence. From her character development to the time line set up, it is an amazing piece of work. I Was Anastasia will be published March 27, 2018 by Doubleday Books.
I give this book a 5 out of 5 stars rating. It is by far the best book I have read this year. I would recommend it to any lover of the Romanov history or historical fiction lover. However, I do recommend doing some research first. I have a good deal of knowledge on the Romanovs and that improved my experience with this book.
I love the time line set up in this book. It is an amazing idea to have both women moving toward each other like trains on the same track. The moment they collide will be the moment we learn the truth. While I do not like Anna on a personal level, I appreciate how cunning, clever, and totally insane she is. She is one of most interesting characters I have ever read. I appreciate the amount of research that must have went into this novel. While it is a work of fiction, I bet that was a time consuming task.
The only criticism I can possibly have for this book is the very thing I like most: The Timeline. Some readers may find the nonlinear design difficult to follow.
I Was Anastasia by Ariel Lawhon is a work of historical fiction. It is the prefect marriage of creativity and intelligence. From her character development to the time line set up, it is an amazing piece of work. I Was Anastasia will be published March 27, 2018 by Doubleday Books.
I give this book a 5 out of 5 stars rating. It is by far the best book I have read this year. I would recommend it to any lover of the Romanov history or historical fiction lover. However, I do recommend doing some research first. I have a good deal of knowledge on the Romanovs and that improved my experience with this book.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Jul 31, 2021
Firstly, let it be known that The Suicide Squad is a far, far, superior movie to 2016's Suicide Squad (although, that's not exactly a tall order...)
It's fun, frantic, sweary, gory, and is, above all, unmistakably a James Gunn film.
The remants of the 2016 version that remain are improved, namely Rick Flag and Harley Quinn. Both characters are well fleshed out and likable. Stand them side by side with all the newcomers and you have a wonderfully weird line up of D-list DC villains. Amongst the massive ensemble, the meatier roles are given to Bloodsport (Idris Elba), Peacemaker (John Cena), Ratcatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Polka-Dot Man (David Dastmalchian), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and of course, the show stealer King Shark (Sylvester Stallone). I would happily kill for him, and Sebastian the rat....
All of these characters are simply a pleasure to watch. Their interactions with eachother are frequently hilarious and the combined team give this movie a huge fricking heart that was so lacking back in 2016.
My main criticism is the pacing. After an amusingly brutal opening gambit, the whole thing takes a bit of a dive. The humour isn't quite enough to hold the slow-paced first hour together, and I found myself drifting on more than one occasion. I also wasn't a fan of the arty title cards that crop up throughout (with the exception of one during the films final act, which is quite possibly one of my favourite moments in the history of comic book movies...)
Sure, this whole part drags the experience down as a whole, but the last hour is an absolute riot. A fantastic scene involving Harley Quinn, a long hallway, and a javelin, marks a triumphant turn in proceedings, and the build up and resulting climax is batshit insane, with a villain I genuinely thought I'd never get to see in the big screen. It's horrifically entertaining and doesn't let up until the credits roll.
Ultimately, The Suicide Squad is heaps of gory fun, and a welcome addition to the mixed bag that is the DCEU. Personally, I would love to see Gunn return to the franchise in some form. Hell, give him the keys to the whole kingdom and see what happens.
It's fun, frantic, sweary, gory, and is, above all, unmistakably a James Gunn film.
The remants of the 2016 version that remain are improved, namely Rick Flag and Harley Quinn. Both characters are well fleshed out and likable. Stand them side by side with all the newcomers and you have a wonderfully weird line up of D-list DC villains. Amongst the massive ensemble, the meatier roles are given to Bloodsport (Idris Elba), Peacemaker (John Cena), Ratcatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Polka-Dot Man (David Dastmalchian), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and of course, the show stealer King Shark (Sylvester Stallone). I would happily kill for him, and Sebastian the rat....
All of these characters are simply a pleasure to watch. Their interactions with eachother are frequently hilarious and the combined team give this movie a huge fricking heart that was so lacking back in 2016.
My main criticism is the pacing. After an amusingly brutal opening gambit, the whole thing takes a bit of a dive. The humour isn't quite enough to hold the slow-paced first hour together, and I found myself drifting on more than one occasion. I also wasn't a fan of the arty title cards that crop up throughout (with the exception of one during the films final act, which is quite possibly one of my favourite moments in the history of comic book movies...)
Sure, this whole part drags the experience down as a whole, but the last hour is an absolute riot. A fantastic scene involving Harley Quinn, a long hallway, and a javelin, marks a triumphant turn in proceedings, and the build up and resulting climax is batshit insane, with a villain I genuinely thought I'd never get to see in the big screen. It's horrifically entertaining and doesn't let up until the credits roll.
Ultimately, The Suicide Squad is heaps of gory fun, and a welcome addition to the mixed bag that is the DCEU. Personally, I would love to see Gunn return to the franchise in some form. Hell, give him the keys to the whole kingdom and see what happens.
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated Changeling (Order of Darkness, #1) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
I knew I had to read this book after this <a href="http://busyteacher.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/changeling-by-philippa-gregory-book-review/">review</a>; alerted me to Philippa Gregory’s foray into YA literature. I’m definitely a fan of her writing, having read a couple of her books, the most impressive, in my opinion, being The Other Boleyn Girl. I am a complete history geek, and had really high hopes, as I’m usually kept transfixed.
For the most part, I enjoyed it. I liked the mysteries that seemed difficult to explain, and the sense of injustice felt at Isolde’s plight (a very plausible situation, back then) kept me interested throughout the book at what would become of her. It was also good when various characters (and not just Luca) were able to shed some light on the piece of the puzzle – it made it seem a little more realistic. I really liked the character of Freize, and how he reacts around pretty much everyone!
However, there was some sort of sparkle missing, especially given my expectations of the author. I couldn’t put my finger on what it was this morning, when I finished the book, but I think I’ve got the gist now. This may be my natural cynicism, but it seemed as though Luca and Isolde were both a little too perfect – they’re both great looking and have sexual chemistry, which, given that it’s supposed to be staying relatively historically accurate, doesn’t seem entirely appropriate, unless in later books they manage to resist each other.
Then, there are some moments that are only half-arsedly explained. <spoiler>Firstly, it is suggested that Freize did not, as he said, release them from the dungeon, but no reason is given for this. Then, the werewolf is given as a little boy lost years before. All well and good, but can a wild child really be mistaken for an animal? I must admit, it stretched my imagination a little far!</spoiler>
Despite my criticism though, it wasn’t a bad book, and I probably would read the other books in the series. The Changeling aspect was barely touched upon, which is odd considering it’s the title of the book! The plot was good, and if the character development gets a little better, I will probably be rating them higher than this one!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>;. If you liked it, please check it out!
For the most part, I enjoyed it. I liked the mysteries that seemed difficult to explain, and the sense of injustice felt at Isolde’s plight (a very plausible situation, back then) kept me interested throughout the book at what would become of her. It was also good when various characters (and not just Luca) were able to shed some light on the piece of the puzzle – it made it seem a little more realistic. I really liked the character of Freize, and how he reacts around pretty much everyone!
However, there was some sort of sparkle missing, especially given my expectations of the author. I couldn’t put my finger on what it was this morning, when I finished the book, but I think I’ve got the gist now. This may be my natural cynicism, but it seemed as though Luca and Isolde were both a little too perfect – they’re both great looking and have sexual chemistry, which, given that it’s supposed to be staying relatively historically accurate, doesn’t seem entirely appropriate, unless in later books they manage to resist each other.
Then, there are some moments that are only half-arsedly explained. <spoiler>Firstly, it is suggested that Freize did not, as he said, release them from the dungeon, but no reason is given for this. Then, the werewolf is given as a little boy lost years before. All well and good, but can a wild child really be mistaken for an animal? I must admit, it stretched my imagination a little far!</spoiler>
Despite my criticism though, it wasn’t a bad book, and I probably would read the other books in the series. The Changeling aspect was barely touched upon, which is odd considering it’s the title of the book! The plot was good, and if the character development gets a little better, I will probably be rating them higher than this one!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>;. If you liked it, please check it out!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 22 July (2018) in Movies
Oct 22, 2018 (Updated Oct 22, 2018)
Good Direction (1 more)
Well Acted
An Important, If Terrifying Recent Tragedy
22 July is a Netflix film directed by Paul Greengrass about a brutal 2011 terrorist attack in Oslo.
This film is hard to watch.
I'm a guy that loves gory action flicks and intense horror movies, but something like this is far more disturbing to me. The film is so well made on a technical level, that at some points it actually feels like you are watching the real life massacre play out, which to me felt a little bit too real. Thankfully, I have never been affected by an act of terrorism, nor has anyone that I know, but if I had, I'm not sure how I would feel about someone making a movie like this retelling the trauma that those people went through.
I appreciate that this is an important event in recent history and shouldn't be something that is easily forgotten, but the brutal realism of this film is hard to stomach at times. It really puts you in the shoes of the victims and let's you imagine the terror and crippling fear that they must have felt.
The actor that plays the perpetrator of the attack, Anders Behring Breivik, (played by Anders Danielsen Lie,) has to be commended. He was so believable in the role that I ended up getting really angry every time that he appeared in a scene. I don't even want to know what an actor has to do to get into that headspace, but he put in an absolutely sublime performance as a deplorable scumbag.
The other standout role was Jonas Strand Gravli as Viljar Hanssen, one of the victims of the attack. He is the audience's main conduit into this horrific event and he is brilliant throughout the film.
The main criticism that I have is that we are shown this horrific attack in brutal detail and the aftermath of the event, with no real purpose. I am not sure what the point of this movie was other than to retell a gut wrenching, terrifying story of a real life terrorist attack. I guess, if you were to do some reaching, you could say that the fact that the film has no point echoes the fact that this brutal act of mass violence also had no point and sometimes these horrific things just happen with no real reason.
Overall, this is a very well made movie. It is full of heavy emotions and will make you think about the nature of the human mind. This is if you can get through it though, the movie is very hard to watch and I can see a good amount of folks turning off because they can't handle it, which I can totally understand.
This film is hard to watch.
I'm a guy that loves gory action flicks and intense horror movies, but something like this is far more disturbing to me. The film is so well made on a technical level, that at some points it actually feels like you are watching the real life massacre play out, which to me felt a little bit too real. Thankfully, I have never been affected by an act of terrorism, nor has anyone that I know, but if I had, I'm not sure how I would feel about someone making a movie like this retelling the trauma that those people went through.
I appreciate that this is an important event in recent history and shouldn't be something that is easily forgotten, but the brutal realism of this film is hard to stomach at times. It really puts you in the shoes of the victims and let's you imagine the terror and crippling fear that they must have felt.
The actor that plays the perpetrator of the attack, Anders Behring Breivik, (played by Anders Danielsen Lie,) has to be commended. He was so believable in the role that I ended up getting really angry every time that he appeared in a scene. I don't even want to know what an actor has to do to get into that headspace, but he put in an absolutely sublime performance as a deplorable scumbag.
The other standout role was Jonas Strand Gravli as Viljar Hanssen, one of the victims of the attack. He is the audience's main conduit into this horrific event and he is brilliant throughout the film.
The main criticism that I have is that we are shown this horrific attack in brutal detail and the aftermath of the event, with no real purpose. I am not sure what the point of this movie was other than to retell a gut wrenching, terrifying story of a real life terrorist attack. I guess, if you were to do some reaching, you could say that the fact that the film has no point echoes the fact that this brutal act of mass violence also had no point and sometimes these horrific things just happen with no real reason.
Overall, this is a very well made movie. It is full of heavy emotions and will make you think about the nature of the human mind. This is if you can get through it though, the movie is very hard to watch and I can see a good amount of folks turning off because they can't handle it, which I can totally understand.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated What Light in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Almost a decade after Jay Asher wowed readers with his debut novel, he returns to the literary scene with a brand new young adult romance. <i>What Light</i> focuses on the life of a good-natured girl living a complicated life. It is almost as if the teenaged Sierra is living two lives: eleven months on a Christmas tree farm in Oregon, followed by a month selling them in California. Due to the struggling business, this year may be the last time Sierra spends Christmas in California; however it is also the first year she meets the boy of her dreams.
Knowing that a romantic relationship is unlikely to survive the long distance between the two states, Sierra cannot help her developing feelings towards the handsome Caleb. Using his own money to purchase Christmas trees for families who cannot afford them, Caleb seems like the perfect guy; however rumours suggest he has a rather dubious history. Struggling to convince everyone that Caleb is a good person, Sierra suffers the consequences of strained relationships with her friends back home. The big issue is: should she continue to support Caleb even though in a couple of weeks she may never see him again?
As young adult romance novels go, <i>What Light</i> is fairly typical. Girl and boy meet; there are various issues to resolve; but things turn out all right in the end. If you are into those types of stories then this is the book for you, sadly, Asher does not bring anything new to the genre.
After reading several of these types of predictable novels, it becomes noticeable how unrealistic they are. The amount of youngsters in committed relationships is rather suspicious, especially the ones that seems to happen as if by accident or fate – although, from the readers perspective, are so obvious from the very beginning.
There is nothing deep or meaningful within this narrative – not a criticism of <i>What Light</i>, rather an observation of the genre – but it is sufficient for a quick read to pass the time, particularly over the upcoming Christmas period. There is nothing to disappoint the reader in terms of conclusion – it could be described as what some would call a “fluffy read”.
Overall, <i>What Light</i> is a novel that maintains the status quo of young adult romance, providing brief entertainment for those seeking a happy love story. With beautiful (in terms of personality) characters and settings, Jay Asher is likely to win back all the fans that had given up waiting for his next book to be written.
Almost a decade after Jay Asher wowed readers with his debut novel, he returns to the literary scene with a brand new young adult romance. <i>What Light</i> focuses on the life of a good-natured girl living a complicated life. It is almost as if the teenaged Sierra is living two lives: eleven months on a Christmas tree farm in Oregon, followed by a month selling them in California. Due to the struggling business, this year may be the last time Sierra spends Christmas in California; however it is also the first year she meets the boy of her dreams.
Knowing that a romantic relationship is unlikely to survive the long distance between the two states, Sierra cannot help her developing feelings towards the handsome Caleb. Using his own money to purchase Christmas trees for families who cannot afford them, Caleb seems like the perfect guy; however rumours suggest he has a rather dubious history. Struggling to convince everyone that Caleb is a good person, Sierra suffers the consequences of strained relationships with her friends back home. The big issue is: should she continue to support Caleb even though in a couple of weeks she may never see him again?
As young adult romance novels go, <i>What Light</i> is fairly typical. Girl and boy meet; there are various issues to resolve; but things turn out all right in the end. If you are into those types of stories then this is the book for you, sadly, Asher does not bring anything new to the genre.
After reading several of these types of predictable novels, it becomes noticeable how unrealistic they are. The amount of youngsters in committed relationships is rather suspicious, especially the ones that seems to happen as if by accident or fate – although, from the readers perspective, are so obvious from the very beginning.
There is nothing deep or meaningful within this narrative – not a criticism of <i>What Light</i>, rather an observation of the genre – but it is sufficient for a quick read to pass the time, particularly over the upcoming Christmas period. There is nothing to disappoint the reader in terms of conclusion – it could be described as what some would call a “fluffy read”.
Overall, <i>What Light</i> is a novel that maintains the status quo of young adult romance, providing brief entertainment for those seeking a happy love story. With beautiful (in terms of personality) characters and settings, Jay Asher is likely to win back all the fans that had given up waiting for his next book to be written.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Should this tense, dramatic thriller remain a Secret?
I was lucky enough to be invited to an advanced screening of this film, ahead of it's general release.
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Game Of Thrones in TV
Jul 1, 2019
Winter has come and gone... and there won't ever be anything like it again!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Game of Thrones. The only show that drove people to brag on social media about the fact they've never seen it every time a new series came out!
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.