Search
Search results
BookInspector (124 KP) rated A Present from India in Books
Sep 24, 2020
When I started reading this book, it did not hook me, and that remained till the end of the book. The main characters of the book were mother whose name was Eva and her half Indian, half English daughter Dee. I really admired Eva’s character in this book. She was like an old wise owl, I liked that, at least now she was wise and made good decisions.(what I wouldn’t say about her study days) Unfortunately I found Dee quite stupid and annoying, with her silly decisions and being stubborn with those not logical wishes she makes in the book. Because of these real life character features I found them both to be very realistic and believable, there are many mixed marriages in the UK and I liked the diversity of the characters.
As it was mentioned in the description, there are two stories told of two generations. It is the trip to India which is happening at present and a time spent in Moscow in 1977. I really loved reading about Eva's time in Moscow; it was really interesting to me. I enjoyed all the details author told about Moscow. I think that's where authors experience comes in, she studied in Moscow during seventies herself, that's why she was able to portray the city and the atmosphere of those days quite accurate. The relationship Chandra was having with Eva was really complicated and for me it kept the suspense going, that's why I used to get excited once those chapters used to come up. Unfortunately the Indian trip was not very interesting to read for me. I think in many places there was too much detail which was not necessary. What drinks they had and what food they ate, I was not very interested in that. The characters wanted to see real India, but what was written in the book was far from the real India. Living in a hotel and travelling first class is not real India experience. It seemed like a tour which most probably author had, and this was the way to share the experience. As person who saw and lived in everyday Indian conditions, I can assure, it’s not like it was in the book. Even though I didn't really enjoy the parts of India voyage, it made me want to take my mother there. I liked the relationship which Eva and Dee shared during that trip.
I liked the writing style of this novel; it has this lovely English way: refined and polite, avoiding conflict. I am a big fan of short chapters, or long chapters divided into smaller, so the length of the chapters was not my favourite part in this book as well. They were long and too boring sometimes. Another thing I really enjoyed, was the ending of this book. It was unexpected to me and made sense why the novel was written in the way it was. So to conclude, if you never visited India and have interest in Soviet history, you will enjoy this book and will find some exotic places and interesting way of living in 1970ties Russia.
As it was mentioned in the description, there are two stories told of two generations. It is the trip to India which is happening at present and a time spent in Moscow in 1977. I really loved reading about Eva's time in Moscow; it was really interesting to me. I enjoyed all the details author told about Moscow. I think that's where authors experience comes in, she studied in Moscow during seventies herself, that's why she was able to portray the city and the atmosphere of those days quite accurate. The relationship Chandra was having with Eva was really complicated and for me it kept the suspense going, that's why I used to get excited once those chapters used to come up. Unfortunately the Indian trip was not very interesting to read for me. I think in many places there was too much detail which was not necessary. What drinks they had and what food they ate, I was not very interested in that. The characters wanted to see real India, but what was written in the book was far from the real India. Living in a hotel and travelling first class is not real India experience. It seemed like a tour which most probably author had, and this was the way to share the experience. As person who saw and lived in everyday Indian conditions, I can assure, it’s not like it was in the book. Even though I didn't really enjoy the parts of India voyage, it made me want to take my mother there. I liked the relationship which Eva and Dee shared during that trip.
I liked the writing style of this novel; it has this lovely English way: refined and polite, avoiding conflict. I am a big fan of short chapters, or long chapters divided into smaller, so the length of the chapters was not my favourite part in this book as well. They were long and too boring sometimes. Another thing I really enjoyed, was the ending of this book. It was unexpected to me and made sense why the novel was written in the way it was. So to conclude, if you never visited India and have interest in Soviet history, you will enjoy this book and will find some exotic places and interesting way of living in 1970ties Russia.
HPePrint Enterprise MobileIron
Productivity and Utilities
App
Description: Secure business printing! IMPORTANT NOTE: HP ePrint Enterprise for MobileIron will not...
YouCam Snap
Productivity and Utilities
App
Scan and Digitize Your Photos, Notes, Presentation and More!! - Automatically de-skew, straighten...
Sleep Sounds HQ: relaxing aid
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
* As seen on CNN, Lifehacker, and Engadget.com * Fall asleep fast to over 600 high-quality...
Audio guide Rome Crazy4Art
Travel and Entertainment
App
Audio guide awarded by Facebook! Our app has been selected for the start-up program FB "Bootstrap...
VR Hollywood Blvd by Car Virtual Reality 360
Entertainment and Travel
App
Nice VR experience and beautiful memories if you already were there or if not, gain experience as if...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated You Were Never Really Here (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Joachim Phoenix delivers a standout performance in a violent tale of crusading.
Joachim Phoenix (“Her”) is a very intense actor, and fits perfectly here into the role of Joe. For he is a hired thug, available to do over anyone you think deserves dispatching or giving a good telling off. His weapon of choice for this task is a ball-point hammer, bought each time from a local hardware shop. He is a ghost, who drifts in and out of his jobs, face concealed by a hoodie and emanating an air of menace that automatically deflects enquiring eyes.
When hired by a Senator (Alex Manette) to rescue his wayward daughter Nina (Ekaterina Samsonov) from the clutches of a paedophile gang, Joe delivers on the job with gusto, and – you sense – a degree of satisfaction. But then things go from bad to violent worse and Joe is drawn into a deadly high stakes game. As things get more and more personal, Joe embarks on a personal crusade for justice and retribution.
The real joy of this film is that Joe is such a nuanced character. Yes, he’s a brutal thug, but is still living with and loving his aged and demented mother (Judith Roberts), even though she drives him to distraction. He’s also clearly damaged himself, with a high degree of OCD behavior exhibited. Via clever flashbacks, we get hints to the route that led the boy to become this damaged man. As a sociopath, when things go wrong he could just say “F*** it” and walk away. But he doesn’t. Is this altruism? A sense of professional pride? Or is it the sight of a path to redemption? Although you could strongly argue that revenge kicks in to reinforce his decision, Lynne Ramsay‘s screenplay leaves things deliciously vague. Ramsey also directs expertly: she previously did 2011’s “We Need To Talk About Kevin”.
“I don’t like gory films” you might say “so this doesn’t sound like one for me”. Me neither, but actually, the trailer makes the film seem worse than it is. The violence is more alluded to than shown. Most of the “hammer action” is done either in long shot or seen on CCTV cameras, and you don’t get to see much of the outcome. There is only one really gory bit that I remember (shut your eyes where Phoenix answers the knock at the hotel door if you are squeamish!).
This doesn’t mean that it’s a comfortable watch though. It’s an insanely tense film since you’re not sure the direction it will go in next (think “Get Out”), and it has more than its fair share of “WTF” moments, especially in a dramatic closing scene. There are some memorable cinematic moments as well: a young girl in a nightie in the paedophile den blankly observing Joe’s handiwork being one that stays with you.
It’s a standout film, winning Best Actor (for Phoenix) and best screenplay (for Ramsey) at Cannes. It will be in a strong position to make my films of the year list. Highly recommended.
When hired by a Senator (Alex Manette) to rescue his wayward daughter Nina (Ekaterina Samsonov) from the clutches of a paedophile gang, Joe delivers on the job with gusto, and – you sense – a degree of satisfaction. But then things go from bad to violent worse and Joe is drawn into a deadly high stakes game. As things get more and more personal, Joe embarks on a personal crusade for justice and retribution.
The real joy of this film is that Joe is such a nuanced character. Yes, he’s a brutal thug, but is still living with and loving his aged and demented mother (Judith Roberts), even though she drives him to distraction. He’s also clearly damaged himself, with a high degree of OCD behavior exhibited. Via clever flashbacks, we get hints to the route that led the boy to become this damaged man. As a sociopath, when things go wrong he could just say “F*** it” and walk away. But he doesn’t. Is this altruism? A sense of professional pride? Or is it the sight of a path to redemption? Although you could strongly argue that revenge kicks in to reinforce his decision, Lynne Ramsay‘s screenplay leaves things deliciously vague. Ramsey also directs expertly: she previously did 2011’s “We Need To Talk About Kevin”.
“I don’t like gory films” you might say “so this doesn’t sound like one for me”. Me neither, but actually, the trailer makes the film seem worse than it is. The violence is more alluded to than shown. Most of the “hammer action” is done either in long shot or seen on CCTV cameras, and you don’t get to see much of the outcome. There is only one really gory bit that I remember (shut your eyes where Phoenix answers the knock at the hotel door if you are squeamish!).
This doesn’t mean that it’s a comfortable watch though. It’s an insanely tense film since you’re not sure the direction it will go in next (think “Get Out”), and it has more than its fair share of “WTF” moments, especially in a dramatic closing scene. There are some memorable cinematic moments as well: a young girl in a nightie in the paedophile den blankly observing Joe’s handiwork being one that stays with you.
It’s a standout film, winning Best Actor (for Phoenix) and best screenplay (for Ramsey) at Cannes. It will be in a strong position to make my films of the year list. Highly recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I’m a big fan of Tom Cruise. He is a real old-fashioned film star, generous with his fans on the red carpet and with real star power at the box office. And I can happily sit down in front of just about any one of his DVD’s time and time again and still enjoy it. Unlike many critics, I even enjoyed his last outing as Jack Reacher.
Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing – “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” – is a bit dull.
Lee Child’s Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major (“No, ex-Major”) intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the “Avengers” world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).
Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains – led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) – haven’t counted on Reacher’s ‘particular set of skills’.
My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It’s as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.
Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don’t add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the ‘investigation’: the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.
Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born-leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the “hero” it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.
The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise’s more interesting movie “The Last Samurai”.
The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately – for me at least – the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.
Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing – “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” – is a bit dull.
Lee Child’s Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major (“No, ex-Major”) intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the “Avengers” world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).
Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains – led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) – haven’t counted on Reacher’s ‘particular set of skills’.
My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It’s as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.
Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don’t add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the ‘investigation’: the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.
Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born-leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the “hero” it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.
The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise’s more interesting movie “The Last Samurai”.
The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately – for me at least – the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.
Kaysee Hood (83 KP) rated Magnus Chase and the Ship of the Dead: Magnus Chase Series Book 3 in Books
Nov 30, 2017
Magnus & Alex (5 more)
Friendship
Big Banana
Chase Space
Percabeth
Pottery Barn
Dragon Dad (3 more)
Ragnarok
A Ship Made Out of Zombie Nails (Gross)
Abusive Dads
World Ending? Not again...
Stop the end of the world. Sounds easy enough, right?
How many times are children of the Gods going to have to do this before one of them has the foretold quest to alter it where life as we know it is not in peril?
Magnus Chase and his friends have to stop Loki, ensure Naglfar doesn't sail, and prevent Ragnarok. Oh, also all while fighting giants with pottery, getting Godly blood and spit mead from giants in the hopes it'll help Magnus in an insult contest with Loki, seeing if Granddad Njord's ex-wife will help them out or let them freeze like a pre-made dinner meal supermom prepared for someone else to pop in the oven. Did I mention Floor 19 Crew has to do all these tasks without dying because not being in Hotel Valhalla equals no responding to life in their rooms. No do overs. No second chances. Simply dead. Easy as pie.
To not spoil this for those of you who have yet to read book three I'll end my sum of The Ship of the Dead and continue on with my praise.
Though there is the question of the voices, if this is the last of Magnus Chase then I have to say I'm pleased with our trilogy of the Norse Gods. In Sword of Summer, Hammer of Thor, and now The Ship of the Dead we've had the characters fleshed out. We've seen them grown. We've witness them overcome personal trails and fight through fears (can we say good job Magnus for fighting wolves even though it is clearly a phobia?). This has proved even those waiting for their day of judgement for centuries can change who they are and accept things even if they are not okay with them.
Somehow in 400 pages that pasts of Halfborn, Mallory, and T.J. were laid out to be part of the main plot, but also show development of the characters and how their own lessons would help on the quest. We were actually able to learn how far they have come from who they were before they died, after death, and who they are now. It was even written how to show they are still learning their lessons and have things to overcome now, which is perfectly okay as long as they stay strong and levelheaded.
The daughters/son of Loki had to overcome their own fears of being good enough despite what poison their fathers have caused them to believe. Even Hearthstone has to return to face the curse over his family one more time. Even Magnus has a realization he has wroth and even if some may not see it, he does and so do his friends.
The Ship of the Dead seems to be about looking at your fears and flaws, realizing they are there, and having to make the choice what you will do about them. Will you allow them to take over your life? Or will you work to be a better person? Are you going to let one moment in the past ruin your future? Or will you take the lesson and forgive yourself, forgive someone else, and live the best life you can? Will you let a parents shortcomings decide how you live? Or will you choose to look beyond their views and become a better person than they are?
How many times are children of the Gods going to have to do this before one of them has the foretold quest to alter it where life as we know it is not in peril?
Magnus Chase and his friends have to stop Loki, ensure Naglfar doesn't sail, and prevent Ragnarok. Oh, also all while fighting giants with pottery, getting Godly blood and spit mead from giants in the hopes it'll help Magnus in an insult contest with Loki, seeing if Granddad Njord's ex-wife will help them out or let them freeze like a pre-made dinner meal supermom prepared for someone else to pop in the oven. Did I mention Floor 19 Crew has to do all these tasks without dying because not being in Hotel Valhalla equals no responding to life in their rooms. No do overs. No second chances. Simply dead. Easy as pie.
To not spoil this for those of you who have yet to read book three I'll end my sum of The Ship of the Dead and continue on with my praise.
Though there is the question of the voices, if this is the last of Magnus Chase then I have to say I'm pleased with our trilogy of the Norse Gods. In Sword of Summer, Hammer of Thor, and now The Ship of the Dead we've had the characters fleshed out. We've seen them grown. We've witness them overcome personal trails and fight through fears (can we say good job Magnus for fighting wolves even though it is clearly a phobia?). This has proved even those waiting for their day of judgement for centuries can change who they are and accept things even if they are not okay with them.
Somehow in 400 pages that pasts of Halfborn, Mallory, and T.J. were laid out to be part of the main plot, but also show development of the characters and how their own lessons would help on the quest. We were actually able to learn how far they have come from who they were before they died, after death, and who they are now. It was even written how to show they are still learning their lessons and have things to overcome now, which is perfectly okay as long as they stay strong and levelheaded.
The daughters/son of Loki had to overcome their own fears of being good enough despite what poison their fathers have caused them to believe. Even Hearthstone has to return to face the curse over his family one more time. Even Magnus has a realization he has wroth and even if some may not see it, he does and so do his friends.
The Ship of the Dead seems to be about looking at your fears and flaws, realizing they are there, and having to make the choice what you will do about them. Will you allow them to take over your life? Or will you work to be a better person? Are you going to let one moment in the past ruin your future? Or will you take the lesson and forgive yourself, forgive someone else, and live the best life you can? Will you let a parents shortcomings decide how you live? Or will you choose to look beyond their views and become a better person than they are?
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Lost In Translation (2003) in Movies
May 13, 2018
Solid Film
When a famous actor hops over to Tokyo to shoot a commercial, he meets a young woman that fills an empty void in his life.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
My son hates dramas and rightfully so as he's a thirteen-year-old boy. He wants to see things blowing up and people getting thrown through walls. Yet somehow, the first ten minutes of Lost In Translation sucked him in as much as it did me prompting him to watch the whole thing. From the time he touches down in Tokyo, Bob Harris (Bill Murray) sucks you in and holds on to your attention for dear life. You're anxious to see what this man is going to do next.
Characters: 10
Staying on Bob for a moment, his character made the film. His dry sense of humor and pure disinterest in everything going on around him is so sincere and captured just perfectly. He's torn between his sense of duty with work and family, so much so that he's almost forgotten how to enjoy life. When Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) comes along, everything changes for him. Charlotte is innocent and sweet and is somehow drawn to Bob like a moth to a flame. Like most "opposites attract" relationships, the two fit extremely well together and add a sense of appeal to the film. Watching them both interact with the Japanese people and try to bridge cultural and language gaps was easy comedy that works everytime.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
There are a number of memorable scenes that stick out in my head with a couple of favorites I keep replaying. The first is where he's trying to shoot his commercial. The director is trying to relay something to Bob in Japanese which a translator is telling Bob in English. The scene is only five minutes long and had me cracking up from start to finish. In my other favorite scene, Bob has a run-in in his hotel room with a Japanese prostitute. Again, the language disparity makes the entire interaction one hilarious situation.
Outside of memorable scenes, Lost In Translation gives you a pause for introspection and contemplative thought. Oftentimes we wander aimlessly through the relationships in our lives...but what do they really mean? What are relationships without happiness or closeness? What is the real meaning of a connection?
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Had this film's story taken place in North America somewhere, it wouldn't have been nearly as impactful. With the setting in Japan, it throws a monkey-wrench into a plot that could have been extremely simple and makes it way more intriguing. Are Bob and Charlotte truly falling for each other or are they just connecting because they are lonely and so far from home? Definite food for thought.
Resolution: 8
Ah, the famous ending of Lost In Translation. What did she say? What does it all mean? How does the story end anyway? The ending, while it does leave you hanging, is an intriguing one for sure. I understand the ambiguity and I don't love it, but I'm ok with it.
Overall: 92
Bill Murray is like the Marvel Cinematic Universe...on steroids. They have been putting out hits for a decade now. Murray has been starring in classics for decades. This film is another notch on his belt. Loved it!
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
My son hates dramas and rightfully so as he's a thirteen-year-old boy. He wants to see things blowing up and people getting thrown through walls. Yet somehow, the first ten minutes of Lost In Translation sucked him in as much as it did me prompting him to watch the whole thing. From the time he touches down in Tokyo, Bob Harris (Bill Murray) sucks you in and holds on to your attention for dear life. You're anxious to see what this man is going to do next.
Characters: 10
Staying on Bob for a moment, his character made the film. His dry sense of humor and pure disinterest in everything going on around him is so sincere and captured just perfectly. He's torn between his sense of duty with work and family, so much so that he's almost forgotten how to enjoy life. When Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) comes along, everything changes for him. Charlotte is innocent and sweet and is somehow drawn to Bob like a moth to a flame. Like most "opposites attract" relationships, the two fit extremely well together and add a sense of appeal to the film. Watching them both interact with the Japanese people and try to bridge cultural and language gaps was easy comedy that works everytime.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
There are a number of memorable scenes that stick out in my head with a couple of favorites I keep replaying. The first is where he's trying to shoot his commercial. The director is trying to relay something to Bob in Japanese which a translator is telling Bob in English. The scene is only five minutes long and had me cracking up from start to finish. In my other favorite scene, Bob has a run-in in his hotel room with a Japanese prostitute. Again, the language disparity makes the entire interaction one hilarious situation.
Outside of memorable scenes, Lost In Translation gives you a pause for introspection and contemplative thought. Oftentimes we wander aimlessly through the relationships in our lives...but what do they really mean? What are relationships without happiness or closeness? What is the real meaning of a connection?
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Had this film's story taken place in North America somewhere, it wouldn't have been nearly as impactful. With the setting in Japan, it throws a monkey-wrench into a plot that could have been extremely simple and makes it way more intriguing. Are Bob and Charlotte truly falling for each other or are they just connecting because they are lonely and so far from home? Definite food for thought.
Resolution: 8
Ah, the famous ending of Lost In Translation. What did she say? What does it all mean? How does the story end anyway? The ending, while it does leave you hanging, is an intriguing one for sure. I understand the ambiguity and I don't love it, but I'm ok with it.
Overall: 92
Bill Murray is like the Marvel Cinematic Universe...on steroids. They have been putting out hits for a decade now. Murray has been starring in classics for decades. This film is another notch on his belt. Loved it!